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

[Buccura]

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.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Yeah, but it depends on the person, not everyone thinks games as a whole are art.

I think in a way all games are art, some more than others.
But a good photograph or artwork has an almost infinate amount of artworthy-ness compared to a game.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

People seem to think that art has one and only one definition, and that this definition has to be strict and tightly controlled.

Its like with movies. Some movies are meant to be enjoyed as mindless fun and just a couple hours of distracting entertainment. They include art, but their goal is not to BE art.

Similarly some games are just meant to be distracting fun, basically elaborate toys. They include the work of artists and certainly include art, but the goal of them is never to become valued works of art.

But then you have movies clearly designed to be art. To me that means the goal of the movie is to say something meaningful about the human condition - to give the audience a thoughtful and introspective experience that may change their perceptions or have a meaningful impact on their lives or the way they view the world.

Whether it succeeds or not isn't the point, but if the people involved in making the movie intend to create such an experience then the product is art. Whether or not it is 'good' art or 'bad' art is another debate.

The same goes for games. Some designers simply want to create an entertaining experience that will provide the player with some distracting fun. Others design a game with the goal of creating an experience that says something meaningful about the human condition.

 

[Richard Hannay]

On the contrary, I think people take art a little too seriously. And I say that as an artist. I mean, in response to the OP, what constitutes an "artistic experience?" What precludes something from being an "artistic experience?"

These days, and on this forum in particular, people tend to use the term "art" as some arbitrary measure of quality. "I think this is good/beautiful, so it's art," is the unspoken assumption.

The pretension, I think, comes into play when people start thinking that something commercial/entertaining can't be art, or that art must have a message (and therefore that "art for art's sake" can't exist). Never mind that most of the art of the Renaissance was purely commercial at the time; religious decoration when the church was the economic force to the reckoned with.

Another common viewpoint is that "games X, Y, and Z are art, but games as a whole aren't." Does a trashy novel preclude literature from being an art form? Does a stupid movie preclude film from being an art form? I say that if a game can be art, then games must be an art form. The only reason it's even a question is because gaming is a relatively young form of expression.

 

[badgersprite]

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.

Most TV is just fun. Most movies are just fun. Most books are just fun. Yet that doesn't diminish the fact that we acknowledge each of these as a valid artistic medium.

That is the games are art argument.

 

[Stilt-Man]

I'm getting there, myself. I'm sort of hesitant to say why, because it tends to ignite a lot of reaction, as opposed to reason.

Oh, well.

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.

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?

Both of these opinions can (and undoubtedly will) be ripped to shreds, I understand, but I stand by them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

 

[Richard Hannay]

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.

 

[chainer1216]

i think that games on the whole are art, just like i think all drawings, TV shows and movies are art. in order for them all to come into existence someone needed to implement an idea who's point is to cause a feeling, be that feeling the immature giggle you get from hearing duke nukem's one liners (or the groans) to the awe we feel in many of the scenes from games like shadow of the colossus, or the badassness we feel when we rip out a cyclops' eye as kratos from God Of War.

 

[captaincabbage]

Nah, I'm not to serious about games, tho I do think games and their developers should get the same respect and acknowledgement that witers, painters and directors get, and really, whats wrong with that?

Persoanlly, I reckon the whole 'Games aren't art' argument is bollocks and the people who argue it's validity are relentlessly pretentious.
It's not to say that the argument itself is pretentious, just that the people who argue over it are. The exact same thing can be said about the 'games are art' argument.

 

[alias2]

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.

Whats the definition of an artistic experience?

Consider two common definitions of art, a creation with no function or an expression of self. Both of these definitions imply intent of the creator, rather than a particular trait of the creation.

In general I would hold that this is true of most peoples definition of art. Art is something the creator experiences, not the viewer.

This is why in Queensland (Australia) they do not allow you to write poetry for the senior year standardized testing. While the author may feel they have written a masterpiece, the marker may think its a load of crap. Only the artist knows the true value of their creation.

 

[CCountZero]

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 other developers) are kind of holding gaming back, I think.

This.

These two need to get in the industry and punch some sense into the powerhouses

 

[Pist0l 07]

I'm getting there, myself. I'm sort of hesitant to say why, because it tends to ignite a lot of reaction, as opposed to reason.

Oh, well.

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.

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?

Both of these opinions can (and undoubtedly will) be ripped to shreds, I understand, but I stand by them.

Actually no, this is a good point. My counter point to this is what does a movie do that can't be found in books and paintings. New art forms will use the old to help get its point across. As for specific examples, well any moral choice systems in games, heck just being able to control so much of what you do makes peope think. I've played GTA 4, so I've mowed down countless civilians under the hood of my car and under rained down lead death. However there was a point in the game where I was wounded so I called for and ambulance and in order to get my money back I shot the drivers. As I did that one of the guys put his hands up and said to me, "Calm down man, there is no need to do this". I shot him clean through the head. I stopped palying right then and there. I thought, was I really that cruel, he didn't deserve that. Hell it was just a dumb NPC, but being able to explore your own nature like that, thats pretty deep.

Back to the point,

Spoiler

The part in bioshock where you beat Ryan to death with a glof club, it gives you a much stronger connection then watching a movie.

.

 

[Savagezion]

"There once was a man from Nantucket..." is a poem and poetry is considered an artform. "Triple X" is a movie and movies are condisered an artform. You see where I am going with this I am sure. No need to list every artform available and how there are unartistic works in every one of them.

This arguement always reminds me of the "Sandman" escapade. Where Sandman #19 won a "World Fantasy Award" for "Best Short Fiction" and then the rules were changed to exclude a comic from ever winning again. Some people just refuse to accept some forms of media as an artform.

To me that seems a whole lot more pretentious than someone saying that it is or that anything can be for that matter. When I see people say "no" to "CAN video games be art?" and not "Are ALL video games art?" I can't help but scoff and mumble a profanity.

TL;DR - I don't think it is pretentious to claim games as art, I find it pretentious to say they cannot be art.

 

[ninja51]

Well everythings an art form, the arguement is basicly a defence mechanism by the entire gaming industry to try and not get ourselves banned completely by some old crazy cocks we didnt elect. If things are art, generally, they are tougher to ban outright. Everything in the world could be considered art, its just the eye of the beholder, some people just want to be dicks and say "This is art, that isnt, thats nothing and I personally dont like it so I want it gone." They dont see the fact that things are art, they dont even play games, so we have to stick up for ourselves about it.

 

[Skoldpadda]

On the contrary, I think people take art a little too seriously. And I say that as an artist. I mean, in response to the OP, what constitutes an "artistic experience?" What precludes something from being an "artistic experience?"

These days, and on this forum in particular, people tend to use the term "art" as some arbitrary measure of quality. "I think this is good/beautiful, so it's art," is the unspoken assumption.

The pretension, I think, comes into play when people start thinking that something commercial/entertaining can't be art, or that art must have a message (and therefore that "art for art's sake" can't exist). Never mind that most of the art of the Renaissance was purely commercial at the time; religious decoration when the church was the economic force to the reckoned with.

Another common viewpoint is that "games X, Y, and Z are art, but games as a whole aren't." Does a trashy novel preclude literature from being an art form? Does a stupid movie preclude film from being an art form? I say that if a game can be art, then games must be an art form. The only reason it's even a question is because gaming is a relatively young form of expression.

Awesome post. Couldn't have said it better myself in a hundred years.

 

[Wintermoot]

I agree and why do we want games to be art?

 

[Julianking93]

It depends on the game and the person you're talking to.

Sure, games like Okami are art no matter how you look at it, but others are arguable.

The only thing that can be said is that while making film is an art form, not all films are good, so why isn't game making considered an art form?

I stick by that. Some of it's good. Some of it's shit. Big deal. I don't get why it's such a sensitive subject.

 

[Serenegoose]

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.

I'm not sure. What's an appropriate level of seriousness to take anything? Isn't that rather a personal choice? I take my games pretty damned seriously, but that's not to say I'm a joyless husk who thinks that 'having fun' is trivial and non-serious. I take having fun pretty seriously in that I think that happiness is the only worthwhile human endeavour out there. Anything that furthers that is a pretty big deal. So when people say that games can't be a meaningful experience, then their narrow viewpoint irks me pretty immensely. When people say that being affected by something is to take it 'too seriously' then I find their trivialising of my passions pretty irksome too.