Am I the only one that finds the "Games are art" argument really pretentious?

[Richard Hannay]

So, a game is only art when someone plays it? Okay, I'll buy it. More than that, I love it. But what of the craftsmanship that predicts and takes advantage of player behavior as a means of conveying a story; the subtle (or not subtle) ways in which a level designer can manipulate a player? A game, and a video game especially, is not just a set of rules; it is an environment in which those rules exist. Even if it's as simple as the line down the middle of the Pong field, that line informs behavior; it recalls a border, and prompts the instinct that the dash on the other side of that seemingly innocent line is my enemy.

Does level design qualify as a sort virtual installation piece? (Keep in mind that I'm not talking about aesthetics, or even world building; these are things that other art forms do already. I'm talking about manipulating the way the playing chooses to interact with the environment on an intellectual and emotional level.)

Hrmm...

I'd like to make a quick note that I like you.

The environment that surrounds you, the level design, the textures on the walls, and the layout that leads you where you go, it's all one giant picture in the end, one giant picture that must have a message. That most definitely would HAVE to be art, as it inherently has a message to it.

While I would stand by my notion that a "game" is not inherently art. The virtual world built within a video game must inherently be art. Along those lines so must be the characters that we see, and really anything visual within the game.

You're entirely right. No video game is "just" a set of rules. I think where the difference comes in is that people seem to treat the entire video game as an art form, whereas I would say any game (including a video game) is a set of rules, which can have any kind of different art imprinted on it.

That's my opinion at least. And it varies depending on your definitions of course.

Have you developed any games by any chance? Your perspective sounds like one a developer might have, with rules/systems and environment logic so clearly divorced from one another, as they are often created in separate stages of the development process.

In contrast, I guess my view would be that of the consumer (which, of course, I am), taking the complete package off the shelf and considering it as such. EDIT: Okay, maybe not the whole package, but certainly the interactive aspects of it, which is where I think games exhibit the most artistic potential.

EDIT Again: And I have to disagree with the environment being "a picture in the end." When a level guides you in a certain direction?not by making it the only way to go?but by making it so appealing that the player chooses (or thinks that they chose) to go that way, don't think any single image can capture that. I think there's art in creating the illusion of choice. The appeal doesn't have to be strictly visual, either. Suppose a player is guided in a direction because s/he is led to believe that s/he will be able to exploit the rules to their best advantage that way? Can any other medium capture that phenomenon and the resulting emotion?

But you're right, it's all down to the personal definition of the terms. Which I suppose is why there are about 6 billion threads about games being or not being art on the internet.

 

[Thaius]

So since you don't personally care about games being an art form, anyone who argues for their artistic and cultural advancement as an art form is being pretentious?

No. Art is a vital aspect of culture, and when an art form is not viewed as one, it suffers, and as a result, so does the culture itself. Video games are an art form, and not recognizing that is simultaneously holding back the medium and the culture itself. That's not pretentious, it's simply wanting what is best for video games and artistic advancement as a whole.

 

[joshuaayt]

Games are not, of themselves, art. The argument (As I understood it) was that games equal any other medium in their capacity for artistic expression, not that any game is some dude's magnum opus.

And I agree with that argument; video games do have tremendous artistic potential.

 

[Mik0ri]

We also have to consider that art is in the eye of the beholder. Especially these days... one person may look at a mangled pudding cup full of apple slices and see a sculpture worth thousands of dollars. Another person may see nothing, except a few apple slices that look pretty edible.
The same applies to games.

 

[JEBWrench]

While I concede that "art" is entirely subjective, and anything and everything can be considered art, I have a tough time placing video games with written and visual arts, because they can't be universally appreciated [yet]. You need a power source to engage the medium, and much of the world just can't do it.

This isn't entirely unreasonable. It's kind of functionalist (it's only art when society says so), and ignores the potential of the medium that you acknowledge in your next paragraph, but I see where you're coming from.

Something that bugs me about the games-as-art argument are the examples. They're always "pretty" games, or games with intriguing plots and characters. These are things that can be found elsewhere -- paintings and books. I've yet to hear any examples based solely on gameplay, or the interactive experience. This is why the medium exists, no? Then why isn't the artistic value placed on these things?

Holy crap, it's like you're in my brain. I can't wait for developers to stop trying to imitate movies. The likes of Hideo Kojima (and a ton of others) are kind of holding gaming back, I think.

I've been saying this for a long time. Usually the responses I get are uncontrollable rage and flaming.

Hell, even the wife and kids got on my case for it.

 

[Whitenail]

To me art is not simply "This is good in the areas of X, Y and Z therefore it is art", no, art is about what we as those who experience it take away from it. The main difference in my opinion between artistic mediums is how they evoke the emotions in the...beholder, a good book can evoke emotion through word choice and narrative, a good painting can evoke emotion through the colour pallette, use of techniques like shading and sketching and the image represented. Music, films...food, you get the idea, while some combine elements of other mediums to their benefit each has a unique way of expressing itself to the viewer/reader/listener/player.

Games have the interactive element in this respect, while I've seen games with gorgeous graphics, excellent dialogue and incredible scores it's in the interactive element where I've gotten the most fulfillment, to engineer entire scenarios where the player is forced to make decisions or do certain things orchestrated by the designer, you will get an emotional response. The interactive element alone has been able to do such things in games, I think everyone can admit to points in survival horror games where they desperately didn't want to move forward, and particular sequences like Braid's endgame help bring a sense of realization and fulfillment concerning a games plot or message to the player just by the fact that they're in control, practically in the situation itself.

But to be honest I prefer my games to be fun, don't get me wrong I enjoy a game that could be considered "artistic" as much as the next person but that doesn't mean squat if I'm not either enjoying myself, even if that enjoyment's as jugheaded as the subtle delights of killing ground aliens with my chainsaw machine gun in Gears (God I love that franchise).

 

[RatRace123]

I think that one of the reasons we often raise our "Games are art" flag is the credibility it brings. We're under attack a lot by people who think that games have no merit, so raising that flag and pointing to a few games to validate the argument is one of our strongest methods of defense.

I believe that games can be art, not all games, but it's not really that hard to find artistic merit for many of them.

 

[joebthegreat]

Have you developed any games by any chance? Your perspective sounds like one a developer might have, with rules/systems and environment logic so clearly divorced from one another, as they are often created in separate stages of the development process.

In contrast, I guess my view would be that of the consumer (which, of course, I am), taking the complete package off the shelf and considering it as such.

But you're right, it's all down to the personal definition of the terms. Which I suppose is why there are about 6 billion threads about games being or not being art on the internet.

I'm working at Wendy's at the moment

You have much more of a right to claim any expertise or knowledge based on art in games.

While my education has covered programming, music theory, graphic design, 3D design, debate/communication, and a million other things, I have absolutely no experience working on any sort of game, and I won't be getting into that for the foreseeable future.

 

[MattRooney06]

There will allways be arguments here

for instance my brother thinks Halo: reach and MW2 are artistic

since it is his oppinion i cant really call him out on it, however i disagree with him

 

[jowo96]

To be honest there is very little that cant be considered art. The term "Art" is loosing its meaning to me. But some things are more artistic than others.

 

[Roughgalaxy]

The argument about whether games are art comes down to one thing. If games are classified as an artistic medium, then they are protected under the right of free speech, if not, they can be heavily regulated and the entire industry to face serious ramifications.

I for one see Video games as an art form. even a straight forward shooter like Halo or call of duty not only have beautiful graphics but engaging stories, and it's the stories that really pull most games into the art column. Sure there are brilliantly styled games like Shadow of the Colossus that truly make you feel not only vastly inferior to the beings you must kill, but also utterly awestruck by the character these huge creatures have, and even feeling bad, or even sorrow, for killing them.

Video games aren't flawless, but neither are any medium considered art.

Music, movies, literature, paintings and photography, even architecture can all be called art, but I'm sure all of you can find at least one example from every category that would certainly fail to meet artistic standards.

I say, don't condemn an entire medium because of some bad examples where there are so many more rich ones to focus one.

Support your medium,

--RG

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Art is entirely subjective. Philosophers have been trying to define what "art" is for centuries, and they still haven't done it. Probably never will. So arguing about whether or not something qualifies as art is a pointless exercise anyway, because it boils down to your personal opinion on art.

I'm sorry, but when I think of art, I always think of the picture kind and that's all that art will ever be to me.

Technically you aren't wrong, even though you totally are.

 

[Space Jawa]

What irks me most about the whole argument is when people seem to have a need to make games that are designed to be 'artistic' for the sake of being 'artistic' so they can point to them and say "See! See! Games ARE art!"

Only to totally miss the point and end up with something that hardly qualifies as a game at all and instead is something more like an interactive movie. It's worse when people try to shout down anyone who tries to point this out and do nothing more than add to the problem. Yes, a Game can be art, but not if it fails to be a Game first.

Though to be fair, the problem isn't limited to games. I have the same problem with when people try to point to canvases that are just painted in a single color which is suppose to be "art" when it's hard to even consider it a painting in the first place. Or that "song" that involves people doing nothing but sitting around for the whole length of the piece and then people try to point it out as an example of "art". That's not art, it's just people sitting around doing nothing, which could arguably also be labeled as "laziness".

Holy crap, it's like you're in my brain. I can't wait for developers to stop trying to imitate movies. The likes of Hideo Kojima (and a ton of others) are kind of holding gaming back, I think.

I've been saying this for a long time. Usually the responses I get are uncontrollable rage and flaming.

Hell, even the wife and kids got on my case for it.

I completely sympathize with you. And I don't think it's a problem limited to games. It reminds me of a book I read for a directing class I took in college (Mis-Directing the Play: An Argument Against Contemporary Theatre by Terry McCabe, if you're interested. Personally, if I were theater professor, I'd find a way to make it mandatory reading at the very least for all directing students I had to teach, and possibly for all theater students that were in classes of mine period.), which basically said that too many stage directors try to direct stage plays as if they were directing a movie, and as a result, the miss the point of the play they're directing or otherwise try to direct it in such a manner that detracts rather than adds to the script.

I think there's a similar problem in video games, where what far too many game designers really want to do is make movies, whether they realize it or not. Rather than try to make games, the they try to make movies using video games as the means to present the movie rather than the silver screen. What they should instead be trying to do is either focus on making video games or get out of the game industry and try to make it in Hollywood instead. Or on TV, if their project is just 'too big' for a movie.

Funny enough, it seems like there are people in Hollywood that understand this better than than too many people in the game industry. For all the talk of games being more like movies, no one seems to want to point out that when a big name in the movie industry actually went ahead and made a game of their own, they made one that was about as un-movie like as possible - Boom Blox, a game attributed to Steven Spielberg. He's one of the biggest names in Hollywood, and yet his game has nothing more than an excuse plot told through a few quick stationary slides and focuses on it's key gameplay mechanics for a really fun experience. And he'd be the kind of guy I'd think people would expect to make a game as movie-like as possible. So why is it so difficult for people who make games as their primary source of income to figure out?

 

[Joos]

Lets just leave it at 'some games can be art.'

 

[beniki]

There are games that I will say without hesitation, have artistic merit to them. To name a few, Killer7, Eternal Darkness, Bioshock, Deus Ex, Braid, Okami, The Darkness, and I'm sure there are many others out there that I either forgot about or simply have not played. But whenever people start to argue games as a whole being an art form, honestly, I just roll my eyes and shake my head.

I mean, I love games, but I play games mostly to have fun. If I can get an artistic experience out of it then great. But still, when people start the whole "Games are art" argument, I can't help but feel like, maybe, they take games a little too seriously.

That's just my two cents.

Yeah, we do take games too seriously. But it's fun, and we like talking about them. Even the bad ones. Actually, especially the bad ones. No wait, the good ones too. Mediocre ones give a perspective on the medium as a whole though. Or sometimes just their own genre. That's pretty interesting. Those games that rely on a single mechanic are very intriguing in their simplicity. But the interconnected complexity of more diverse games are fascinating too. And then throw MMOs on that stack as kings of diversity and wealth of mechanics. But also terribly classical in design. And we haven't even started on art styles and what they can do for a game...

My point is, that playing a game is fun. Some people just find analysing them fun too

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm okay with the idea that games have the potential to be used as an artistic medium, but a lot of the "games as art" stuff on this site boils down to "I want the cultural elite to validate my hobby." Sure, games can be art, but frankly, I'd rather play a good game with no artistic merit than a bad game with delusions of grandeur. I think the medium will be mature when the audience no longer feels their own maturity threatened by their enjoyment of the medium to the point of having to justify it as art.

I always thought it was mostly "I want the guy who liked the last Schwarzeenegger flick to stop crapping on my hobby" and "I don't want them to ban my hobby for the same cultural flaws inherent in film, literature, and music."

A fair amount of the response developed after Roger Ebert criticised the genre, and let's face it: Even when you factor in only what Roger Ebert reviews, there's a lot of crap in his medium. People don't dismiss film as art because of the violence in it. Well, they do, but really only a fringe element. Nobody's striving to dismiss novels as art simply because of the romance in the checkout aisles. Nobody says music isn't art because Manson or Eminem exist (Or pick a more recent example; I haven't paid much attention to the critics of music in years).

Which brings me to Schwarzenegger v the EMA. Could you imagine being told that music should be legally declassified as art because Ke$ha has no artistic value? I guess I could think of a more recent example. Or really, how would people like it if movies like Schindler's List were under the knife because they existed alongside pure testosterone laden violence porn like Driver?

Screw being validated by the cultural eliste, gaming still carries a connotation that you're a fat mouthbreathing virgin living in your mom's basement. Oh, and that you've probably got violent tendencies, because ZOMG VIDEO GAMES MAKE YOU KILL!

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Art is entirely subjective. Philosophers have been trying to define what "art" is for centuries, and they still haven't done it. Probably never will. So arguing about whether or not something qualifies as art is a pointless exercise anyway, because it boils down to your personal opinion on art.

I'm sorry, but when I think of art, I always think of the picture kind and that's all that art will ever be to me.

Technically you aren't wrong, even though you totally are.

Ok, I was exaggerating a tad there. What I meant was the classic forms of arts. Paintings, sculptures and so forth. But to me, games aren't art because that's not the purpose of them. What is the purpose of a game? To entertain, plain and simple. So I just take as a form of fun, it doesn't need the tag of "Art" to justify its existence.