Am I the only one that finds the "Games are art" argument really pretentious?
- Thread starter Buccura
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Art" has more or less become a meaningless word, because everyone can call what they create art.
Art is used both for painting, sculptures, litterateure, movies, music, performances, events etc. Basicly it's used for everything, as long as the ones making/doing it, or the ones watching or otherwise 'consuming' it chooses to call it so.
And the quality of said "art" will nto help, because it's subjective
There'll always be someone who finds the work of art extremely interresting in one way or the other, and others who disagreee and think it's shit.
"My four year old could've painted that" is an argument used regularily, about some pieces of (usually abstract) artwork, which is often countered with "you know nothing about art, you don't understand it"
The first argument been used to make jokes on art critiques several times, where established artists has had their actual 4 year olds (or whatever age their toddlers was) paint a picture, then claim it was their own work and then recieving tons of praise from art critiques before releaving, that the painting was in fact made by a 4 year old.
Music as art also has some good point to keep in mind. While most people agree that classic masterpieces such as mozarts stuff is art. What about radio-music, the kind of stuff that gets played over and over in popular radios? some people woudl say yes, cause it's awesome (regardless of whether it fades into oblivion after a month or two or not) some would say yes, cause they just consider music to be art by default, some would say no, cause they see it as soul-less mass-produced crap, and in the end, no-one has any authority to make a defining statement.
As for video-games, most games have a story, and because of that, they can proclaim themselves to be art based on that, the same way litterateure and movies do. Whether the story sucks or is good doesn't make it less art than books or films, cause theres shitloads of bas stories in book/film form as well.
Games have graphics as well, to be more excect, an near unlimited number of possible frames that can apepar on your screen.
Each of those frames is a picture in itself, theres no arguing with that.
Each of those pictures could be classified as art, solely cause pictures are considered artwork by default.
And even if you went and said that the "random" computer generated pictures that comes to your screen based on your (and the online crowd you're playing with in casde of online games)s input doesn't count, cause they were made by chance with no art in mind, you still have all the cut-scenes whether made with the games engine or hand aniamted, or pre-animated quick-time events, where your char usually doesn something over the top (especially in hack'n slashers), each of those are made out of a number of keyframes, wih a lot of automaticly generated in-between frames.
In animation, whether 2d or 3d, keyframes are made with composition and everything else an artist would use if they were to paint such a picture as a single stand-alone image in mind.
Also, the models in the games are not just called models for the lulz, they're modelled digitally, and tehrefore are themselves digital sculptures animated afterwards.
In the end, whether or not people sees a game as a whole, as a piece of art (which as explained would make no sense not to, seeing how art gets thrown onto all kinds of things) no-one can deny that theres shitloads of artwork in the games, Both in the form of sculptures, images, story, music, interactive performances etc. Then it's up to the individual to decide whether they think it's good or crappy artwork. But regardless, anyone saying games has nothing to do with art really needs to think about, what they do consider art, and why, because if they have a "normal" perception of what is art, they're acceptign games themselves, or (some of) the elements games consist of to be art.'
Ps. All spelling and gramma errors in this post is an artistic statement by yours truly :/
Art is used both for painting, sculptures, litterateure, movies, music, performances, events etc. Basicly it's used for everything, as long as the ones making/doing it, or the ones watching or otherwise 'consuming' it chooses to call it so.
And the quality of said "art" will nto help, because it's subjective
There'll always be someone who finds the work of art extremely interresting in one way or the other, and others who disagreee and think it's shit.
"My four year old could've painted that" is an argument used regularily, about some pieces of (usually abstract) artwork, which is often countered with "you know nothing about art, you don't understand it"
The first argument been used to make jokes on art critiques several times, where established artists has had their actual 4 year olds (or whatever age their toddlers was) paint a picture, then claim it was their own work and then recieving tons of praise from art critiques before releaving, that the painting was in fact made by a 4 year old.
Music as art also has some good point to keep in mind. While most people agree that classic masterpieces such as mozarts stuff is art. What about radio-music, the kind of stuff that gets played over and over in popular radios? some people woudl say yes, cause it's awesome (regardless of whether it fades into oblivion after a month or two or not) some would say yes, cause they just consider music to be art by default, some would say no, cause they see it as soul-less mass-produced crap, and in the end, no-one has any authority to make a defining statement.
As for video-games, most games have a story, and because of that, they can proclaim themselves to be art based on that, the same way litterateure and movies do. Whether the story sucks or is good doesn't make it less art than books or films, cause theres shitloads of bas stories in book/film form as well.
Games have graphics as well, to be more excect, an near unlimited number of possible frames that can apepar on your screen.
Each of those frames is a picture in itself, theres no arguing with that.
Each of those pictures could be classified as art, solely cause pictures are considered artwork by default.
And even if you went and said that the "random" computer generated pictures that comes to your screen based on your (and the online crowd you're playing with in casde of online games)s input doesn't count, cause they were made by chance with no art in mind, you still have all the cut-scenes whether made with the games engine or hand aniamted, or pre-animated quick-time events, where your char usually doesn something over the top (especially in hack'n slashers), each of those are made out of a number of keyframes, wih a lot of automaticly generated in-between frames.
In animation, whether 2d or 3d, keyframes are made with composition and everything else an artist would use if they were to paint such a picture as a single stand-alone image in mind.
Also, the models in the games are not just called models for the lulz, they're modelled digitally, and tehrefore are themselves digital sculptures animated afterwards.
In the end, whether or not people sees a game as a whole, as a piece of art (which as explained would make no sense not to, seeing how art gets thrown onto all kinds of things) no-one can deny that theres shitloads of artwork in the games, Both in the form of sculptures, images, story, music, interactive performances etc. Then it's up to the individual to decide whether they think it's good or crappy artwork. But regardless, anyone saying games has nothing to do with art really needs to think about, what they do consider art, and why, because if they have a "normal" perception of what is art, they're acceptign games themselves, or (some of) the elements games consist of to be art.'
Ps. All spelling and gramma errors in this post is an artistic statement by yours truly :/
"Am I the only one that finds the "Games are art" argument really pretentious?"
Absolutely not..
Games ceased being art (IF they ever were) when gaming entered the mainstream and they all began to get designed by committee, for profit.
There 'may' be a few indie titles out there that come about as close to art as games ever will (i.e.. kinda, but not really)... but actual art?... fuck off.
Until one man sits down with his vision, self finances it.. and shuts everyone out til it's finished.. THEN releases it, for free.. just for the love of it.. GAMES WILL NEVER, EVER EVEN APPROACH ART. Some may include a certain amount of artistic endevour, but that doesn't make them 'art'.
Can a homogonised 'vision' made for profit, completed in a predetermined timescale, ever be art? NOPE.. and nothing and no-one could ever convince me otherwise.. and anyone who says otherwise, simply isn't worth listening to because they have shit for brains.
....AND there is NO SUCH THING as 'art as investment'.. because as soon as money enters into the mix the 'art' becomes PRODUCT.... it's as simple as that!
Absolutely not..
Games ceased being art (IF they ever were) when gaming entered the mainstream and they all began to get designed by committee, for profit.
There 'may' be a few indie titles out there that come about as close to art as games ever will (i.e.. kinda, but not really)... but actual art?... fuck off.
Until one man sits down with his vision, self finances it.. and shuts everyone out til it's finished.. THEN releases it, for free.. just for the love of it.. GAMES WILL NEVER, EVER EVEN APPROACH ART. Some may include a certain amount of artistic endevour, but that doesn't make them 'art'.
Can a homogonised 'vision' made for profit, completed in a predetermined timescale, ever be art? NOPE.. and nothing and no-one could ever convince me otherwise.. and anyone who says otherwise, simply isn't worth listening to because they have shit for brains.
....AND there is NO SUCH THING as 'art as investment'.. because as soon as money enters into the mix the 'art' becomes PRODUCT.... it's as simple as that!
What I find pretentious is the opinions of some gamers that feel games should never try to be something that doesn't personally interest them. The amount of people like this is at least concerning. So much so, that I feel that's it has to do with a lot of why people, who want games to branch out into new territories and get proper recognition for its merits, get so passionate about the debate. It's hard enough to express something artistically for a large audience as it is but this medium actually has a large active community of people who not only don't want to observe artistic expression, they don't want anyone to even attempt to make the expression and will berate those who try to.
As for the argument itself, my only input is that I wish people could wrap there heads around the fact that art has a right to be bad and without subjectively bad art there wouldn't be a way to measure subjectively good art. Very few games would I say have no artistic value but most games are in my opinion, bad art. Before anyone brings up Sturgeon's Law, I want to say at this point in the medium's history, the 90% figure would not cover the amount of crud in it. That's why I feel it is important to encourage more artistic endeavor, this medium is failing Sturgeon's Law from the wrong end.
Now I do think you have to be careful in declaring something as art. I personally have a hard time on whether or not the original Tetris program by Alexey Pajitnov could be considered art. Not because of its primitiveness but because of Alexey's own statements in the past. I'm fairly sure he set out to make just a game and it was not an expression of any kind. Later versions of Tetris had distinctive art styles applied to them but I can say the same of Chess pieces and Checker boards.
This is where the medium would benefit from an additional title, something I know has been discussed before but I've never heard one that was any good. For the comic book, there's the graphic novel, a term that I even admittedly find to be pretentious but at the same time I admit it's very marketable. Every such term I have ever heard for video games, such as "interactive graphical story" or as the such, has all the pretentiousness and none of the marketability. As to why it matters if it is marketable, on the contrary to an above post, art and product have a binding history. Profit can be a good tool for exposure, something most great artist thrive on and without any money, creating the game an artist wants can be impossible. I wouldn't deride a painter for wanting to use a high quality brush and I don't deride game developers for wanting high production values, if it is what their vision requires.
As for the argument itself, my only input is that I wish people could wrap there heads around the fact that art has a right to be bad and without subjectively bad art there wouldn't be a way to measure subjectively good art. Very few games would I say have no artistic value but most games are in my opinion, bad art. Before anyone brings up Sturgeon's Law, I want to say at this point in the medium's history, the 90% figure would not cover the amount of crud in it. That's why I feel it is important to encourage more artistic endeavor, this medium is failing Sturgeon's Law from the wrong end.
Now I do think you have to be careful in declaring something as art. I personally have a hard time on whether or not the original Tetris program by Alexey Pajitnov could be considered art. Not because of its primitiveness but because of Alexey's own statements in the past. I'm fairly sure he set out to make just a game and it was not an expression of any kind. Later versions of Tetris had distinctive art styles applied to them but I can say the same of Chess pieces and Checker boards.
This is where the medium would benefit from an additional title, something I know has been discussed before but I've never heard one that was any good. For the comic book, there's the graphic novel, a term that I even admittedly find to be pretentious but at the same time I admit it's very marketable. Every such term I have ever heard for video games, such as "interactive graphical story" or as the such, has all the pretentiousness and none of the marketability. As to why it matters if it is marketable, on the contrary to an above post, art and product have a binding history. Profit can be a good tool for exposure, something most great artist thrive on and without any money, creating the game an artist wants can be impossible. I wouldn't deride a painter for wanting to use a high quality brush and I don't deride game developers for wanting high production values, if it is what their vision requires.
Another thing:
We can call "art" to whatever we want to, because "art" has yet to be defined.
However, that doesn't mean we should call "art" to everything we want.
If you say Bioshock (a pretty standard shooter with an artistic "wallpaper") is art, you should also call simple board games like (Trivial Pursuit, or Monoploy, or even chess) art, as long as they'd have, for instance, hand-crafted pieces.
We can call "art" to whatever we want to, because "art" has yet to be defined.
However, that doesn't mean we should call "art" to everything we want.
If you say Bioshock (a pretty standard shooter with an artistic "wallpaper") is art, you should also call simple board games like (Trivial Pursuit, or Monoploy, or even chess) art, as long as they'd have, for instance, hand-crafted pieces.
I gotta call bullshit on that. Youobviously selected your avatar for a reason. If this statement were true you would be fine with no avatar and I doubt you selected an image at random for your forum identity.Zekksta said:
If that's the impression I gave you, or anyone else, I sincerely apologize. That wasn't my intent. I don't fancy myself a martyr, or warrior, nor someone who is better than anyone in any capacity. I would never presume to look down on anyone for thinking differently than I do, either.mr_rubino said:
My problem is that whenever this topic comes up, and any opinion even remotely questioning games' value as art, people fly off the handle, and a potentially-decent discussion quickly devolves into an anger-fest. This is a great topic, and I like seeing differences in opinion discussed in a civil, even passionate, manner. I don't like seeing "Games are art, you #$%^ing moron." While the Escapist is better than most internet communities in this regard, it's not immune to that sort of reaction, and it's getting tiresome.
Again, I'm terribly sorry. I'll choose my words more-carefully in future posts.
I can't say -- I've never played it. Sorry. :-(SirBryghtside said:
Depends on the game. The ones you listed, you could consider them art, but not in the sense that you critically examine and view them. Contrast Requiem for a Dream with your latest Action movie, and it carries over fairly well between Limbo and CoD:BOBuccura said:
The lack of disambiguation's the issue here, but really, can you think of a term to describe one or the other without sounding retarded?
Art is subjective. Therefore, not everyone will believe that games are art. In fact, there are a lot of games that aren't necessarily artistic.
Art is not defined. There are theories on what is art, but its not defined. You know why? Because its something we can't explain in words. The closest definition we have of it that appeals to modern ideas goes along the lines of "if it gives you an aesthetic experience (an emotion of some kind) from being in contact with it, then it is art (TO YOU)" So, if a lot of people get an aesthetic experience from video games then it is very well possible for it to be art. It has nothing to do with putting video games to a higher standard, its just a question of how important video games are. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it.
I present this video from this very site
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2414-Facing-Controversy
While the main topic is controversy, there is a portion about the game medium as art, and the video as a whole is very power.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2414-Facing-Controversy
While the main topic is controversy, there is a portion about the game medium as art, and the video as a whole is very power.
It depends on the audience and of course the game, personally I have never been very emotionally moved by a game other than Deus Ex and Beyond Good and Evil, maybe because no games really try to emotionally invest the player, just allow them to blow shit up.RYjet911 said:
I understand that to you games may be art which is fine, but saying that games are greater than photographs all together? Thats just ignorant.
Do you feel more moved when you see the photograph of the marines Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima compared to a team of Halo spartans doing the same thing?
What about the photgraphs of the My Lai Massacre, or the infamous picture taken of a Vietcong suspect right as he is being executed?
Photographs move people and convey a strong image in a way games cannot, and probably never will, because they actually show the harshness of our reality, not some fake fantasy land.
Well, on the plus side, it's better on the self-esteem than calling them toys. Of course, going by my definition, toys are art too, so really, I have to agree that nothing is more pretentious than saying games can't be art.henritje said:
lets say that games ARE art (by my deffinitions anything is art, art is a expression of a idea) would that change anything?sageoftruth said:
OP, you may not be alone, but i don't share your point of view. Just because each and every game can't be considered art, does not mean that games as a whole can't be an art form. I mean, not every movie is a work of art, but films are still considered an artistic medium, aren't they?