Sections

Mizuguchi: Games are “not yet” art, but is “close”

Monday, 16th May 2011 12:54 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Child of Eden producer Tetsuya Mizuguchi has said that games are still not at the point that they can be considered art.

Speaking to IGN, he said that the day it would be was coming “close.”

“I think… not yet. But it’s getting close,” he said. “It’s just beginning. The experience is getting greater in the games industry. Just 40 years ago, we started from black and white dots. No sound, just beep sounds. Then we got colours, 2D then 3D… but we will have a much greater evolution in future games.”

Mizuguchi admitted that whilst developing Eden, he wanted to make it “emotional” but also “happy” at the same time.

“The challenge for Child of Eden was to make it much more organic and happy, as well as very emotional. I needed the music – many types of music – and also I needed to use a character as a metaphor… it’s like a narrative.

“I wanted to use physics technology to create chemistry out of the music and visuals. It wasn’t easy, but I wanted to make a kind of new chemistry. It was a challenge!”

Child of Eden launches for 360 with Kinect support in the UK on June 17. The PS3 version with Move support will launch in September.

Latest

23 Comments

  1. NOSAVIOUR

    Of course it an be considered as art and has been recognised as such.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. TheWulf

    Exactly.

    Also: This man has not played Machinarium, which was the real eye opener for me, and is presumptuous even beyond his station.

    Most artists are actually pretty decent people and I know a few myself, this one chap I’m a good friend of is absolutely amazing, but he’s humble. Humble artists tend to remain that way to not over-assume their abilities, that way they don’t stagnate. They keep trying harder.

    However, you also have the sort of artist who’s just an egotistical jerk. I’ve met them too, their art doesn’t improve over time, and they’re not the most personable people in the world at all. Well, some shy artists aren’t either, but what I’m getting at is that they can be arrogant and quite obnoxious.

    Unfortunately, this fellow here sounds like he’s of the latter type of artist. It’s not his place to dictate whether games are art, have been art, or when they will become art. All art, even classical art, is subjective. That’s the bloody point. It’s for each person to decide individually.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Telepathic.Geometry

    I say videogames can be art. So that’s that.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. OrbitMonkey

    ^ Exactly, Art is subjective & does not need to conform to a set of other people’s standard’s.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. ManuOtaku

    The very definition of art, indicates that videogames are an art, because videogames convey different kind of emotions that alters peoples senses and intellect in so many levels, it doesnt matter the point of view about it, or if it is something subjetctive to each person, in the end it is art

    “Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, and even disciplines such as history and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations”

    P.S another definition “the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with other”, also fits very well to videogames as art.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. AHA-Lambda

    srsly i hate this argument. If you are the sort of person who does not believe books or movies are art then ofc games arent art to you but you are also probably an incredibly stubborn cynical individual.

    Games like other media can convey emotion, and portray stories by this alone surely they are an artform.

    HOWEVER!!
    As much as i can agree that games themselves are art i can not think of many examples of specific games as art. IMO the examples that people tend to throw about, like ico for example, seem to be arty for arts sake more in the visual side than as a game.
    just my 2 cents there tho

    #6 3 years ago
  7. DaMan

    Art itself isn’t subjecive at all to begin with, just because we live in an era of twisted views doesn’t mean you can call anything stylish ‘art’. What’s subjective is one’s perception of various artsy works.

    Terminator might also induce emotional response from some, doesn’t mean it’s art in any way, shape or form.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. ASBI

    heavy rain is a great example imo

    #8 3 years ago
  9. YoungZer0

    @7: Speaking as someone who studied it: Art is as subjective as it gets.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Telepathic.Geometry

    Consider the following:

    Rez (final level),
    Ico (ending),
    Portal 1 & 2 (Ending Song/Screen),
    Uncharted 2 (Drake’s diary),
    Bioshock (meeting Andrew Ryan),
    Dead Space (the entire horrifying experience).

    For me – as pretentious as it may sound – they are nothing less than ar artistic expression conveyed through the medium of a videogame experience. I really felt something in each case. Something akin to the wonder I felt when I first saw the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

    IT’S FUCKING ART SO IT IS!

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DaMan

    @9 Enjoy warped views written by pseudo intelligent scholars, I will enjoy common sense. They teach a lot in unis, doesn’t mean it’s all for the better.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Telepathic.Geometry

    @DaMan: He speaks the truth, which is also subjective. Think about it…

    #12 3 years ago
  13. DaMan

    Sorry, no. That’s like saying all are equally crazy, a rather popular trend nowdays.

    The problem is that many would enjoy thinking that they spend time on something called ‘art’, because in their eyes it’s less of a waste of time than something like ‘entertainment’. Think about that as well.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. Telepathic.Geometry

    Sorry, yes. Consider the definition given above:

    “Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect…”

    The final level of Rez is nothing if not art by that definition. I say it’s art.

    Naturally, you are entitled to disagree, but let me challenge you. Either:

    a) explain why Rez is not Art, or,

    b) explain why the Mona Lisa is.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. OrbitMonkey

    Hmm, DaMan by arguing over what art is, your proving the point that it is indeed subjective.

    You & me could look at some creative piece of work & have opposing views. Who’s in the right? & would it even matter?

    #15 3 years ago
  16. YoungZer0

    Yep, as OrbitMonkey said, you’re actually proving the point.

    Again as someone who had studied art: I had a lot of discussion with other students, every single one had a different opinion, it was arguing over arguing. Discussing where art begins and where it ends.

    We’ve come to the conclusion that there is no beginning and there is no end to art.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. DaMan

    I wasn’t making a notion that a videogame can’t be artsy, I was making a point about differentiating art from say, entertainment. thus I didn’t really prove any of your points. I would call Ico an attempt at art, as well as Rez.

    Art is far from being subjective actually. It isn’t about pointless metaphors or compositions or narratives. It’s about inducing spiritual (or so to speak) experience, as opposed to say, endorphins induced euphoria .

    Consider the analogy between drinking with your buddies at the pub and native americans’ use of mescaline. You might argue that both affect your senses and intellect as well.. The difference isn’t subjective though, unless your perception is dead or warped.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. YoungZer0

    But there is no difference between art and entertainment. Only your perception differentiates it.

    Art is not a genre. Everything can be art.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Telepathic.Geometry

    I think if the guy who made the drugs crafted them in such a way as to affect your senses in a particular way, it might make the drug manufacturer an artist. :^) I knew a guy once whose joint building abilities were certainly art.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DaMan

    They differentiate themselves by default. More so when the ultimate purpose is nothing alike, ie just because you put a few smartass quotes into a shooter doens’t make it any different. Much like the gunfights don’t make No Country for Old Men an entertaining movie. There can be a few tricky ones here and there, but generally they’re nothing alike .

    TG, senses meaning your you know, inner world or soul. Not the funny vision or something like that =p

    #20 3 years ago
  21. YoungZer0

    Forget it.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. DaMan

    Allright, but to say that GTA can serve the same purpose as Andrei Rublev and I might entertain myself with the latter by having a different perception or concept of ‘art’ is a tad bit off I’d say.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. OrbitMonkey

    All this thread is proving is that we all seem to have a different concept on what should be considered art…. Good, makes the world more interesting ;)

    For my pennys worth I fully expect to see a display at The Tate dedicated to Space Invaders :D

    #23 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.