Zimmer: games "absolutely" an art form News

Yes, Cod8 is a work of art. Someone find me the rolleyes smilie.

As perfectly illustrated by the game currently featured to the left.

What game is that? I have adblock on.

""Absolutely," he told USA Today. "That we can't question any more."

I guess that must mean the universal "is it art?" debate must finally be over then.

Well thank christ for that, and its all down to video games.

@PatAU Dragon Age

Don't think the industry will suffer from having him compose some scores for games, can only be a good thing surely? No denying he's very talented at what he does.

Art debate can go blow a goat, just pointless.

@ kangarootoo: haha! exactly. Zimmer succeeds where everyone since Plato has failed.

Still, the acuity of his analysis fills me with confidence that he must be right:

"When movies first came out, maybe they were in black and white..."

Damn! I was hoping Gary Barlow would compose the score to Modern Warfare 2.

And to think Sergeant Gary Barlow was willing to do it for free.

To the left of the headline of this article, on the frontpage. This one.

Who gives a damn if it's a form of art or not? Would declaring games as art make them better?

He basically waited till someone wanted to pay a large amount of $ for him to do a score.
There are loads of big name composers who have been working in games for years (michael giacchino for one)
And lets be honest Zimmers names on the box but he's unlikely to have had more than consultation and perhaps involvement on the main theme.
He has legions of monkeys to write the score he just oversees it.

Danny Elfman's Fable was already pretty good as well.

I stopped worring about whether or not games are art when I realized it wouldn't make my mother any less ashamed of my career path.

I think artistic legitimacy will come when we stop asking for it. When we just focus on making good games, rather than constantly wondering if what we're doing is art, it tends to be considered art as a side effect of putting love into it. Art for art's sake isn't art. Or maybe it is. It's all subjective, after all.

The idea that art is all a matter of opinion is just a matter of opinion. (Aristotle, Hume)

'So how would you characterize the visuals and sound in this game?
Pretty outstandingly amaizng'

Good to see proof reading is alive and well in major international publications.

Wow... i can only imagine how pompous this guy is... he's basically saying "games weren't art, but the moment my pompous ass became involved, they suddenly became the most interesting thing to happen to art since, well... ever." Why not say "the character models in this are better than the statue of David and the dismemberment has a certain Venus De Milo quality to it" while your at it.

Personally, these big Hollywood orchestral scores have been tiring me out since 1995. Their counterpart.. the melancholic single piano notes that give it that "arthouse" feel, too. You know games have become art, when the people involved start to behave like pompous artists.

The idea that the level of 'audio and visual technology' is in any way related to whether or not a game is 'art' is utterly bogus.

I'm always baffled why some people are obsessed with games being accepted as an art form. If you ask me they are just adults looking for justification to still play with toys, which video games are :)

I mean come who's gonna look at MW2 and think "that art right there"? everyone will be too busy with their kill streak and head shots!

I preferred game music in the 8 and 16 bit days when they were simple catchy melodies that would get stuck in your head for days, and you'd find yourself whistling them at the most inappropriate times. Now it's all soaring strings and droning noise to create "atmosphere".

Games are an art form by a simple process of elimination. If they're not art, what the hell are they? Practical science? Civil engineering?

Whether pretentious people want to 'accept' them or not is neither here nor there. 'Acceptance' of an art form is a simple function of longevity - as it was for everything from opera to comic books.

"If they're not art, what the hell are they? Practical science? Civil engineering?"

No, they're games. Just games. Like Monopoly, or tennis. They are not "art" in the way that I understand art - art for me is a passive experience - but, as others have said, they don't need to be.

Some games, I admit, do rise above mere visceral thrills and enjoyment to something higher. I suppose they could be classified as "interactive art", or something like that.

The way I look at it is that the amount of apreciation given to something is usually and notable absent from its actual quality and determined more by social standing. Ie in any other medium metroid prime would be called a study in abject isolation and lonliness.

Also art has alweays been a relationship between the artist and the person who looks at the art. But deciding on the meaning of a pice for yourself is in no way a passive process unless you go to an historic gallery and look at all the little notes. (Which are only there because we have mostly lost the knowlege of the symbology in the old painings, which has meant that artists no longer hide meaning but try to shout it and mostly end up chaepening it)

Also the real threat of videogames to srt is similar to the one movies posed to art they are fundamentally collective works. This is gotten past in movies by the concentration on the director and possibly the cast, but is harder to avoid for art minded people, who look at videogames who know nothing about key lead developers etc. This is because art is in its own inbred way much obsessed with the celebrity.

Then again ive always preferred Tornquist on this, games aren't art but theres a massive amount of art in games.

Zim Zimmer whos got the keys to my Beemer.

Our hobby has a long way to go yet before being an accepted past time for an adult let alone an artform worthy of conjecture. I'm a 36yr old profesional and it's still hard to come out of the gaming closet, I mean I'm in no rush to add it alongside reading and film going on my CV. My wife overheard a conversation when she was picking up the kids from school, a few of the Mums were laughing about some poor hubby who'd gone down to game at midnight to get Halo:ODST. Now if they were mocking him for it being Halo (I did) fair enough but it was for being a gamer. Would they have taken the piss if he gone to see a just released film?
Although tbh I don't give a monkeys fanny if it's deemed an art form or not for imho most art forms are wedged firmly up their own arses.

I read that as "Zimmer games" and thought it was some crazy-arsed genre I'd never heard of... or maybe that's what OAPs playing Wii are?

'art for me is a passive experience'

Never! Art is never passive, unless you mean art forms that you just contemplate, as opposed to alter. Even then, I don't think so.

Games being art would help them in some ways. But a lot of people don't give a toss for a lot of art - cultural snobbery doesn't just rest on artistic status. Games are still for 'kids' in the eyes of many, artistic merit or not.

I think one of the reasons we're still stuck in this debate is that popular culture in many Western countries have adopted a narrow minded attitude towards animation and many cannot see beneath the surface of videogames and so much of that cultural baggage has been carried over.

Of course games are art, as much as they are also product, its just a case of encouraging people, even if they aren't not interested in making games to learn about how they are made and eventually come up with a robust idea of how it applies to videogames when you consider all the various aspects such as product design for controllers and alternative uses of the medium such as simulations.

Also much as with other forms (Hollywood's classical studio era as an example) directors like John Ford took a no-nonsense attitude to this question partly because they knew the studio heads wouldn't greenlight large scale projects if they spoke openly about it (and part because they were cigar chomping hardnuts!) and had to play it smart.

I bet the paycheck was nice too

A game is just a game, a film is just a film, music is just music and a pickled shark is just a dead fish. But they can also be art.

Art can be something that has been carefully crafted to evoke emotion, idea or some other shit. The term "art" is as pompous and superfluous as "fashion," and is normally bandied about by people trying to look "sophisticated."

Also, "more" unnecessary and wrongly "used" quote marks "please. "

For me, the whole debate is upset by the inherrent assumption that is being art MEANS SOMETHING.

When we say something is art, we imply that it has more value than if it were not art. So we often approach things from the wrong end. We call something art in order to validate it, and THEN we hunt around for evidence to prove our definition is correct.

Nobody has yet some up with a reliable set of rules that can clearly define something as art or not, so the whole debate is completely meaningless. We make up new rules everytime the subject comes up for discussion, chaging those rules at a whim based on whether we support or oppose validation of the subject at hand.

If we could just agree a fixed definition for what ART means, we could classify things as art or not at the drop of a hat. If we can't come up with a fixed definition, the entire discussion is rendered pointless. Its like two people arguing over the meaning of any word, purely because they they posess dictionaries that simply don't agree.


For me, art is anything that can make a person FEEL something. Everything that we have ever defined as art fits that definition. Plenty of other things which haver never been considered art probably fit that definition too, which is fine by me :)

@RESIDENT_nEVILe

I think the word fashion is much more clearly defined, but I would agree that the assumed VALUE of fashion is utter nonsense.

Modern Warfare 2 IS ART.

Its the kind of art that's made from civilian's brains painted on an airport wall.

@kangarootoo I don't think its that difficult to come up with a broad idea of art, say using skills in a genre, literature, cinema, videogames to present something you've created for others to consider. I think a problem is that today with the way everything has fragmented, the idea of something that can be a popular/commercial yet also personal/artistic is often alien, the former is the norm and the latter is an alternative and we place value judgments, one being conformity and the other bravery.

Its assumed to be either one or the other when it can be more complicated, a very successful game could mean the creators are able to take more risks, put more of themselves and their own views into the foreground whilst those in a weaker financial position may have to conceal their own particular style in order to appeal.

No, they're games. Just games. Like Monopoly, or tennis. They are not "art" in the way that I understand art - art for me is a passive experience

I've seen a lot of definitions of art, but 'must be passive' is a new one for me.

No, games are art. The latest in a long line of sources of popular entertainment to go from 'not art' to 'art', by way of 'possible catalyst for the end of society', through nothing more than the passage of time. Other famous examples being novels, films and absolutely any sort of new music including, but not limited to, Stravinsky's 'The Rite Of Spring'.

The word 'games' will become increasingly irrelevent; just as most 'novels' aren't novel, many 'films' aren't recorded on film, and a lot of 'comics' are anything but.

@Vertical Stand

Good points. One of the definitions of "not art" that I have never subscribed to is that something is not art if it is a commercial venture. In fact that I think is a great example of people making up their mind first, and then supporting that belief with selective evidence.

For example, would we consider than the Mona Lisa was not art simply because Leonardo only painted it to cover his gas (candle?) bill?


"The word 'games' will become increasingly irrelevent; just as most 'novels' aren't novel, many 'films' aren't recorded on film, and a lot of 'comics' are anything but."

I've never considered that before, and it is quite briliant.

In my opinion videogames are art. Lets look at buildings & enviroments in gaming. After watching the Abu Dabai Grand Prix this past weekend would you consider that beautiful hotel at the circuit to be art, I certainly do, so why not think the same about a building in a videogame. Some of the structures we see in games today are more appealing to the eye than their real world alternatives and probably take the artist as much time/effort to design as an architect designing a real building. The same can be said about the enviromental setting of a videogame. How come a traditional artist can paint a landscape and it be classed as art yet an enviroment artist who creates a videogame world, often with no real world landscape to copy, is not classed as art.

Hans Zimmer is a legend.

Zimmer, meet frame.

Naturally everyone has their own definitions of art. For *me*, art is a description for things which connect with my emotions and thought processes at a deeper level than other things. And it's not a binary either/or property, where something is either art or not, but an analogue one - a film/painting/book/game can be more 'art' than one film/painting/book/game but less 'art' than another.

This is sometimes (though by no means necessarily) connected with how commercial something is (i.e. how designed it is to make money) - that is, things which are designed purely to make money for the creators, tend not to invoke those deeper emotions (in me).

To put this into context (and provide a counter-argument to the fact that commercial == not art), I would say that an FPS like Serious Sam is not art - it's just a fun game where you run around shooting stuff. But playing the first Modern Warfare game made me think more deeply about the nature of warfare, and so I'd argue that it's more of a work of art than S.Sam (which is to say nothing at all about their relative merits as games).

Also, I have little time for the argument that art == pretentious, but I accept that people in the art-games community have said enough pretentious things on the subject to be guilty of inviting such responses.

Luckily, none of these subtleties are necessary to dismiss Zimmer's argument as rubbish. Even if you take games out of it, he seems to be saying that early movies weren't art, but at a certain point in time, they became art. Nonsense!

Games can be greater than art because they can be stories. (Art can tell a story but it will never be one)

An artform that doesn't know how to handle a classic tale of morality in any other way than awesome gore and baby killing.

You're being a little too positive, Hans.

"You can almost smell it in the air" Smells like moooooney!! -Hans Zimmer

Zimmer's finest work came in 1987 when he wrote the theme tune to TV's Going for Gold. True story.

Hentai art!

You guys get so philosophical at the mention of art, it cracks me up. Don't think too hard about this one. Games are an art form because of the huge creative undertaking involved in making one. Creating a game world is a hugely subjective process based on the developers' vision of how they want the player to experience it. Most old school gamers have realized this since as far back as the Wolfenstein3D days(Give Mario and Sonic some credit too). Why do we care if it's recognized as art? It's partly a matter of social legitimacy. It also has to do with attracting money and talent to the cause, e.g. a talented composer like Zimmer. It's absolutely not true that something done with a profit motive can't be art. First of all, that obviously means you don't believe in games as art. Also, consider that all kinds of art, from live performance to exhibits in a museum, depend on the revenue they bring in to support their existence. Finally, if you have played a game like Half-life, Alice, ICO, God of War, Bioshock, Modern Warfare, or numerous others and you didn't see past the score or kill count, then you really missed out on the majority of the game experience.

I don't give a fuck what Hans Zimmer has to say about games.

Hans Zimmer can make some great adrenalin boosting tracks in my opinion. Let's see how that plays out.

Oh, and art is what you think it is. Your definition may be reinforced by others thinking along the same lines, which may lead you to a statistically "acceptable" definition, but do realise that that's just a smoke screen. Art goes as far as your brain, and it ends there. Like any observation, it's all relative.

"Never! Art is never passive, unless you mean art forms that you just contemplate, as opposed to alter. Even then, I don't think so."

That's exactly what I mean. If you go to a gallery and look at the paintings, everyone looking at them sees the same painting. They just interpret it differently, have different opinions about it. It's the same with a movie or a book. The pictures and words look the same to everyone, but they read them differently. They don't need to have a certain level of "reading skill" or "watching movie skill" to be able to get to the next bit. Art is democratic, egalitarian.

Games, however, are games. You play them, enjoy them, win or lose them. Everyone playing a game will have a different experience, and so I don't think that there is that level playing field which characterises the other art forms I talked about. They are not art in that sense.

Also, let's be honest: games - even as a possible new art form - are not yet at the sophistication level of paintings or cinema. You shoot people, hit baddies with swords, jump around platforms. For every game that might claim to be artistic, there are a dozen more that - while heaps of fun - are pandering to the 15-year-old boy inside most of us. Film is a bit like that too, but I'd argue that there is quite a bit more variety. If we care about whether others take our hobby seriously, we first need to take it seriously ourselves.

I'm sorry if you all disagree and mark this comment down to -50, but that's what I think. *shrugs*

@GhenghisNaan

But what if the person observing the "art" doesn't know its history, and doesn't know that there in money involved? They think they are enjoying art, but then you leap out from the shadows and say "HA! Actually, regardless of what you think, its NOT art because money changed hands durings its creation".

I just don't see how that stands up. Or to put it another way, that definition of what is and isn't art is just as wooly and personal and subjective as any other definition you might care to offer up.


Knowing what sells is really just the same as knowing what your customer likes. Does an artist painting a picture as a gift for a friend make it "not art" if he/she changes the way it is painted so that it will apeal more to the intended recipient

You think ICO wasn't made with "what sells" in mind? You seem to be suggesting that if the artist takes input from external sources, their work is no longer art. By that definition, ICO isn't art, and indeed NO game can be art. As games (good onces anyway, like ICO) most certainly aren't made with no regard for the experience of the gamers that will eventually play them.



Edit:
"There was a great Gamasutra article a while back about comparing game development to music creation, and how most development teams in the games industry resemble a Classical Orchestra - tons of artists highly skilled respected artists basically told to play the same tune over and over because it's "what people want" but everyone knows the real innovation and art comes from the small bands that are completely free to express and break tradition. "

If that is truly what the article said, then I would suggest it wasn't such a great article. The suggestion that orchestral composition is hollow and free of artistic creation, just because an orchestra plays the result, is absurd. Besides which, whoever says that an orchestra of skilled musicians each play "the way they are told" without any personal colouring of the result simply knows nothing about musicianship.

It would be good if you could link the article here. I'd be interested to read it.

"The idea that the level of 'audio and visual technology' is in any way related to whether or not a game is 'art' is utterly bogus. "

Depends on your definition of art. Creating a game that said anything personal on the Atari 2600 would have been pretty bloody difficult.

But hey, you can't please everyone. I've had peopel tell me comics aren't art, despite the fact that they're words and pictures. You could bring them a comic written by Shakespeare and drawn by DaVinci and they'd still dismiss it. To be fair, it'd probably have Wolverine in it.