Good Intro to Videogame Screenshots as Art Photography

When I wrote about whether virtual world/game screenshots should be called "photographs" last Friday, I mentioned that they're starting to gain recognition as a valid art medium -- this article in Huffington Post, a survey of many artists working in the form, is the kind of thing I had in mind. It's not only Second Life image creators who are sensitive to the difference in terminology:

James Pollock, graphic design student in Bath, England, collects his in-game-photography on his blog Virtual Geographic... While related projects by Robert Overweg, Kent Sheely and John Paul Bichard are grounded in the context of experimental media art, Pollock sees no difference to "real life photography": "Treating virtual realities as real in this way is one of the things that makes it an interesting experience for me."

Much more here. There's a very interesting reader conversation in Friday's post, by the way, and while there's some good arguments for why screenshots like these should be called "photographs", I think my point that they're best called "virtual photographs" still stands. The "virtual" qualifier adds clarity, not confusion, to the term's usage.

Hat tip: Carrie Lexington, who has related thoughts here.

Comments

[melponeme_k]

Snaps from a game are not photographs.

Coating a VR snap with photoshop effects and filters does not make you an artist.

All the work has been done by the designers of the game who carefully thought out angles, atmosphere effects etc.

A VR screenshot is just recording what the designer did. This screenshot contains the IP of a graphic designer/s and their work should not be devalued because someone decided to use the blur tool to make it look fancy.

I like taking screenshots but I don't assign artistic merit to them. A more worthy endeavor is to go outside, with a camera and try to be artistic that will have merit.

[Dark]

Melponeme_K - VR photography is just as valid as RL photography. Even tho they may not have created the environment being 'photographed', it is their interpretation of this environment that makes it art.

To discredit them is to discredit RL photography too.

Also another great VR photographer is Iain Andrews - http://enwandrews.tumblr.com

[Kyle Archer]

@Melponeme_K What if you are taking photos of real world architecture? Do you assign all the value of the photo to the architect? No. If you think about it, there is almost zero difference.

[Dark]

I think also, if anything, their photography celebrates the game artists.

When the player is fighting to stay alive or trying to win a race etc etc, they don't have time to look at all the work that has been spent of creating their environment.

These photographers show us all the detail, the sweat and tears that goes into creating compelling environments.

[Melponeme_k]

@Dark

No it isn't valid. It is more akin of taking a picture of a picture. If you decided to make a portrait of any famous photo, could you claim that work as your own? Even if you turned it a hazy green in your photoshop? No you couldn't. Taking screensaves is the same deal. It is another person's graphic and photographic work.

@Archer

Not the same situation. RL is public space. Some buildings may attempt to claim copyright image. I don't think it has ever been taken to a court. VRs are not public domain. They are all copyrighted and private spaces which we pay fees to enter. Its their photographic environment (whoever owns game image rights),

[Nike Air Max]

Very good post. Made me realize I was totally wrong about this issue. I figure that one learns something new everyday.

[art photography]

nice photographs.

[Drew956]

Hmm..
I wish I could disagree with Melponeme_k, but I agree with what was said.

That aside, there is one exception to the ideas mentioned in Melponeme_k's comments that I think I should point out. (it is an opinion, however.)
I think VR photography is a legit art iff the virtual world is in a constant state of flux, like Second Life.
If the conditions in the photo are subject to change and are part of a community/world that may not exist in the same state in the future, then the photo is like a capture of that unique environment/moment or culture "as it was" so to speak.
it's a beautiful thing and becomes like an artifact in a way, a particular angle of and a piece of history.

Just my thoughts.
If anything, the dynamic and limitless nature of second life makes it a work of ever changing art in and of itself, and since it's so boundless and multi-faceted in its experiences(angles of experience?) I think it's valid to consider a photo of it to be a work of art.
But meh, I don't know. It's still private space and copyrighted stuff, so I suppose the photos should be taken with the proper permissions?
(unless artists get a magic free derivative works pass and are allowed to do whatever)