The WoW: Emergent Media Phenomenon exhibit, which runs from now until October 4th at the Laguna Art Museum in Laguna Beach, California, explores different forms of cultural production (read: art) that have been influenced by video games in general, with a strong focus on World of Warcraft. The exhibit uses work by Blizzard artists Chris Metzen, Sam Didier, Chris Robinson, Justin Thavirat, and Roman Kenney, along with work from nineteen other artists from around the globe, exploring themes of desire, the collapse of fantasy, medievalism, creative critiques, and public intervention.

It all sounds rather deep, but that's the world of art for you. Throughout the exhibition, various artists will be lecturing and performing, integrating the World of Warcraft into their work. Visitors will have a chance to actively participate in collaborative art, or simply listen to someone explore the fantasy religious themes in the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch to the imagery found in World of Warcraft.

It actually sounds fascinating. Perhaps I will get a chance to make it out there during this year's trip to BlizzCon.

WoW: Emergent Media Phenomenon [Laguna Art Museum - Thanks Steven]

Lanchester, writing in a way that eases the typical London Review of Books reader into the scary world of video games, focuses on a number of bigger, more mainstream games to illustrate his observations. First up, BioShock. With its thread of objectivist philosophy weaving through the plot, it should be the video game that would convince the new medium phobic that, hey, games are art.

"The game was a huge hit," Lanchester writes "and I have yet to encounter anyone who has ever heard of it."

Lanchester shifts his tutorial on games to subjects such as Shigeru Miyamoto, the LEGO series of universe crossover games and big blockbuster fare like Grand Theft Auto IV, Metal Gear Solid, Call of Duty 4 and LittleBigPlanet. Many of his insights about the conventions found in these types of games are spot on observations about why people who don't play games... don't play games.

His definition of the current gaming population's wants?

"The same thing the audience for any new medium always wants: they want pornography, broadly defined. They want to see things they aren’t supposed to see. This is why video games, in general (and away from the world of Miyamoto-san) are so preoccupied with violence – it’s what young men want to see."

But back to the original question: are they art?

The author won't give a simple yes or no (it would've been a much shorter essay) but does give some indication of his own opinion on the matter.

"Games are not, in general, better than films," Lanchester writes. "But they are often better than huge-budget Hollywood films." They're not terribly better than television programming either, he says.

He nearly summarizes his future perspective thusly, "It seems clear to me that by the time my children are adults, video gaming will be a medium whose importance and cultural ubiquity are at least as great as that of film or television. Whether it will be an artistic medium of equivalent importance is less clear."

Lanchester's focus on nothing but the biggest, most base appealing games is probably not going to win him any fans from the serious, studios gamer, hopefully something that he'll address in a future pondering of whether games are art. Whether you'd agree or disagree with Lanchester, his perspective is definitely worth a read. And no "TL;DR" comments or I'll ban your ass.

Is it Art? [London Review of Books via GameSetWatch]

In a response on his blog to a reader's comment regarding New York Times games writer Seth Schiesel calling Ebert an inspiration during a round of Slate's second annual Gaming Club, the film critic explains that while games are getting better, he would rather follow other dreams.

I am still not sure video games can be "art" in the sense that we use it in this thread, but I am convinced they are getting a lot better. However, if I had at the beginning of my career been told I would spend the next 41 years playing video games, I would have taken up professional knitting.

Aha, but his hypothetical conversion to professional knitter would have eventually led him right back to the world of video games! Gaming is everywhere, Mr. Ebert. There is no escape. Join us.

Roger Ebert's Blog [Chicago Sun-Times via MTV Multiplayer]

In my teaching I have tended to emphasize know thy player more than know thyself, because I feel too many students come to the process with two false preconceptions: First, that game design is a primarily expressive process in which their own desires should dominate; and second, that they are themselves the ideal player for their game.

This is fair enough if they themselves are the only people who will ever play their game, but most designers want other people to play their game as well, and that means thinking about what will entertain them.

Know thy player is doubly important when the game is one that the designer would not choose to play herself — a game for small children, say. When you make games for someone very unlike yourself, you can't rely on your own instincts. You have to study your audience.

Simple and to the point — though, really, many things should be when you get to their core. It's just a matter of paying close attention and recognizing the traps you might fall in before you do.

The Designer's Notebook: The Tao of Game Design [Gamasutra]

Interactive entertainment is both business and art, and the Academy of Interactive Arts And Sciences recognizes both of these faces with their annual DICE Summit and Interactive Achievement Awards. They also host the Into the Pixel game art exhibition, which we saw this year at E3, award scholarships to game design students, and more activities designed to support the industry's creative talent.

We sat down with Academy president Joseph Olin to talk about the state of the industry, this year's E3, and more.

"As much as I think most people reflect upon 2007 as a watershed year for games ad interactive entertainment, I think everything I've seen so far at this E3 shows... that 2008 to 2009 will be bigger, better and brighter than last year," said Olin.

"It's very impressive that, stripping away the challenges of the E3 environment, and the hype and everything else, and looking at games and game makers, there's very impressive things that were shown this year... there's a broader variety of games that were shown this year than in the past."

It's true that while this year's event was low on big surprises and towering spectacle, there were perhaps a broader variety of genres and game types on offer than ever before, something Olin credits in part to Nintendo's success in widening the market through the Wii and the DS lite.

"You have to separate the business of magazines and journalism from the reality of what's here, and why it's good," said Olin. Though he admitted that the hype cycle had been useful for attracting attention and enthusiasm toward the industry, he said he thinks the industry would benefit from providing less advance notice on new products.

"My personal hope is that someday we will show less more often, rather than show more more frequently, because I think that you have the opportunity to be new, fresh and exciting only once," he said. For example, Spore has been on our radar screens for nearly three years now — and Will Wright's ability to likely deliver on such long-cultivated expectations is a rare exception to the rule.

Olin said it's unfair to games for them to languish in the long wait after early announcements. He said the positive showing for EA's Dead Space was a pleasant surprise, since in his view it had suffered from some poor "been there, done that" buzz after being announced a good while ago. "Why not wait a little bit?" Said Olin. "The things you don't see help build your interest."

He also said that Mirror's Edge is a good representation of the maturation of the craft, reflecting some film talent sensibilities in terms of style and camera use. Increased connectivity is another sign of industry maturity, he said, and his favorite current trend is cooperative play, like Resistance 2's squad creation.

Game narratives are also evolving, said Olin. "I think the thing that Ken Levine and his teams did with BioShock, and to a certain extent Metal Gear Solid 4, and to a certain extent the story within GTA IV show the promise and potential that games have to be as narratively important as film."

"We're not there yet, but in some ways, I think we're better, because I don't know that the story of Niko would necessarily make a great movie, but it's strong enough to make a brilliant game."

Olin predicts that the lines between film and games will continue to blur, but that games will use their innate strengths. He said he expects we'll see fewer non-interactive cutscenes, and more game-like cues that tell the player what to do.

"The reason that most people will still choose video games is because of their personal involvement... you go to a movie for a completely different experience and entertainment expression."

No, [games] will only be important when — and if — others can point to our medium — to particular examples of it — and locate moments of individual insight that mattered in their lives. This is a charge for which we have only indirect control. We cannot insure it with transistors and pixel shaders. We cannot will it, we cannot even expect it ... [A]ll we can do is record those flaws, confusions, grievances, shocks, joys, surprises, and hopes.

We might choose to do so in videogames because they are a medium uniquely built for simulating life, for constraining actions, for creating roles others can embody. We might choose to do so in videogames because they are a medium of our moment in history. We might choose to do in videogames so because it is hard to do, because unlike the lyric poem they are a medium with more raw potential than proven triumph.

And then we can hope that history may preserve them, so that later — next week, next year, next century, next millennium — someone much like us might encounter them, and see a part of our lives in theirs.

Awww. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I think Bogost makes some interesting points (there's a sense of immediacy about trying to prove that games are relevant, that they must prove their worth right now) - and it's certainly framed in a way we don't see often. Archilocus? Baudelaire? Bukowski? If only he'd thrown in some Rexroth or Prévert!

Videogames: Can They Be Important? [Ian Bogost via Sexy Videogameland]

"I think some games are art and some are just entertainment, just like in the film industry," he says. "There are action movies that don't really say anything but entertain you, while there are films that can move you, make you laugh and cry, change your life.

"Maybe we've become too obsessed with the question 'are games art?' and should just appreciate it as a medium like no other," Stevenson suggests. "The industry is always changing, so it's going to be interesting to see what happens once people see past the technology we use to produce the game and see the care and love we put into the art."

The ITP show will be exhibited to the public at the E for All Expo, but you can take a look at the current crop (as well as the 2004-2006 collections) on the ITP website.

Into The Pixel: The Artists Speak [Gamasutra]

At the recent Hollywood and Games Summit, keynote speaker Clive Barker gave his opinion on Mr. Ebert's views, defending the "games as art" side of the argument admirably. Obviously these two Hollywood heavy hitters have quite different opinions on what makes art. So, after a few weeks of ruminating, Mr. Ebert finally fired back with his rebuttal, and by and large I felt his answers were fairly sensible (with a few exceptions). He takes Barker's comments one by one and gives his answers to them stating most often that his opinion on games as art is just that, his opinion. As an interesting side note, Mr. Ebert has apparently lost the ability to speak and can only express his views on this matter through writing.

While you might not agree with his views, you should take the time to read his answers and see that maybe he isn't as much of a pompous windbag as we all thought. (Just maybe like 50% ) He's a just a man with his own opinions like we all are. Just because I don't like FPSs doesn't make me an idiot, it just makes me a man who likes to form his own views on something. And if that view doesn't jive with yours it doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just makes me, Me.

Art brings joy — but a joystick? [RogerEbert.com]
[Thanks, Sunjammer]

The kids over at the Weekly Geek have put together an interesting little piece about games as art. We all know that games are art no matter what Roger Ebert has to say about. (What the hell does he know from art, anyway? He made Beyond the Valley of the Dolls for corn's sake.)

But, there's no doubt that some games go beyond the typical to create a truly unique gaming experience that is based in part by the outstanding look of the game. Two of the best examples that I can think of in recent memory would be Shadow of the Colossus and Okami. Colossus' almost minimal approach and limited color pallette are in sharp contrast to Okami's painterly look and broad spectrum of colors, yet, each of these games are made great by the overall feeling one gets when viewing their visuals.

Frodo, The Geek and Caspian all weigh in with their separate lists in the article. I agree with most of their choices, but I also think that limiting it to five makes it a bit difficult to choose. What would be on your list for the Top 5 Games as Art? Flynn De Marco

Top Five List: Top Five Games As Art

Over at Game Set Watch, we see news that NPR has decided to officially sanctioned the random mumblings of three gaming mouthbreathers into a cheap microphone and released via RSS and MP3. A podcast, in other words. At least you won't have to listen to Xeni Jardin's shrill, nightmarish wail, though:

Thought that the GameSetWatch readers might be interested that National Public Radio is getting behind gaming in a big way with a new podcast, Press Start. It's not the usual NPR style, rather three gamers (myself included) talking informally about gaming culture and issues for 15 minutes every other week. The first episode — about games as art — just launched yesterday.

I didn't bother listening, because as you can see, the first episode is about games as art. Yawn. Is anyone except execrable pseudointellectual wank mags like The Escapist not sick of that subject? Like pottery and excrement sculptures, games are certainly art. The more interesting subject is whether or not they are fine art, with far reaching and sophisticated emotional resonance. The answer to that question, right now, is 'no'.... although certain parts of games like Planescape: Torment have gotten pretty damn close. Florian Y DOES FLORAN EKHART H4TE GAMES Eckhardt

NPR Presses Start on Alt.Gaming Podcast

Seattle-based movie critic and editor of RogerEbert.com Jim Emerson dropped me a line over the weekend in response to my rantish blurb about the video games as art "debate" he took part in with Roget Ebert last week in Boulder.

While I still find it contemptible that Ebert didn't get someone with more gaming knowledge to debate him over the issue (Emerson says the last game he played was Myst), it does sound like the discussion they had raised some interesting issues.

Emerson points out (as we have covered in detail) that the debate has been raging on RogerEbert.com for sometime, but he also goes over his personal feelings on the matter. Hit the jump for his full letter.

Regarding the "debate" over whether video games are considered "art" at the Conference on World Affairs a couple days ago (somebody sent my your misleading blog post): The panelists were Roger Ebert, Leonard Shlain, and me. And, yes, Ebert said they weren't art. I said they question was stupid — like saying "Are movies art?" or "Are books art?" or "Is painting art?" — because, obviously, it depends on the individual game. I brought up Myst as an example of an older game that provided an immersive interactive experience that provided what I consider an artistic experience. Shlain talked about interactive video/web installations his techie/artist son-in-law has done, including one what was included in the Whitney Biennial. It was a game-like environment involving a Ouija board operated by thousands of users simultaneously. And, hey, the Whitney thought this web-based "game" was art.

If you want to know more about why I think video games certainly can be art (although, as a critic, I'd argue that Doom, for example, is nothing more than Astroids with blood), you may want to look at some of the stuff I wrote about the topic on rogerebert.com last year. I was chosen for the "Are Video Games Art?" panel not because I am Ebert's web site editor (or his "biggest fan," as you say, without offering any support for that assessment), but because I actually have written about why I think the subject is more complex than "art vs. not art." I published a lot of mail from readers debating this question on rogerebert.com. Here's one posting from my blog, Scanners:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/SCANNERS/51206001/1023

Movies began to develop their own language and aesthetics (apart from still photography or theater) in the early part of the 20th century. And there have always been those who questioned whether movies — especially once they became industrial product pieced together by huge teams in "entertainment factories" called studios — could ever hope to aspire to the level of art.

I confess that the last video game I played was probably the first version of "Myst" — an immersive, otherworldly mystery that, I think, is worthy of comparison on some levels (though character development is not one of them) to mystery-driven narratives like "Twin Peaks," "Mulholland Drive," "Veronica Mars" or "Lost." The point is not so much to find all the clues and solve the mystery as it is to get wrapped up in another world where your curiosity keeps you engaged in exploring.

Web sites — like those for "The Blair Witch Project" or "Donnie Darko" — have already shown how the experience of a movie can be creatively extended into an interactive realm beyond the movie itself. Maybe that's where games are going, too...

Ps. Maybe you're not his biggest fan, but that message from the editor you wrote for RogerEbert.com in 2004 reads like a love soliloquy, it just needed to be written in iambic pentameter.

Ebert Debates Games as Art [Kotaku]

GameDaily has a feature that points to High Voltage's Lead Designer David Rodriguez' column in Buzzscope where Rodriguez suggests that cinematics are ruining video games. Like a bunch of gamers, Rodriguez is tired of running from one well-orchestrated cut scene to another and misses actually "playing" video games. From the piece: "We're supposed to be making games, and instead we are making ridiculous, half-assed movies." First Kojima says games aren't art, now another dev says cinematics are ruining video games - is it opposite day here at Kotaku?

Game Designer: Cinematics Are Ruining Games [GameDaily]

Servant of Two Masters #1: Cinematic Gameplay Experience Makes My Ass Twitch [Buzzscope]

Next Generation has some info from the Feb. 2006 issue of the Official U.S. PlayStation interview with Hideo Kojima. The innovative Kojima, whose Metal Gear games sometimes feel like playable movies, said he, too, doesn't feel like video games are art. His reasoning? Check the jump.

Kojima: 'Games Are Not Art' [Next Generation]

Hideo Kojima said: "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."