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

[Savagezion]

See, first off debate can be healthy. "Agreeing to disagree" isn't always the mature thing to do. If it was nothing would ever get done in politics. This is a subject that can be defined and reason definitely has credibility here. A conclusion can be reached almost soley from reason here as a matter of fact. I understand art is subjective but we have many things to pull from in this discussion. Art has been around for a long time and art has perimeters set for it. Going literally out of the dictionary games fall well into the realm of the meaning of art. It makes more sense to me that games should automatically be considered art unless someone can come up with a valid reason as to why they should not be considered as art. But what we actually get is people saying "No, they are not." with no explanation and that is a pretentious argument.

Some will consider anime/videogames art, I won't.

As much as you may not like it, that IS a pretentious stance. You are saying your definition of art is so right, that no matter what anyone says you refuse to accept games or anime as art. You will not do it, period. That is pretentious man, look it up. And self righteousness and pretentiousness often go hand in hand. It does in this case.

The embarrassing part I will leave aside and say that one may be more of my opinion than fact. But I am allowed some hyperbole here considering how much I am perceiving to be coming from you end.

I said what I consider art.

What I never said
I never said my opinion on what is art, defined what is art.
I never said my opinion was the be all and end all.

In the statement I quoted above and a couple others I can quote you on, you alluded to that exact stance. You did not say it as some prophet of gaming forums, no. But you did allude to the fact that your opinion is unable to matched, ever.

Technically, I never insulted you. I insulted a metaphorical person who could have specific intentions behind the words you have posted. I mean, if we are going to get all down to the nitty-gritty of what was and wasn't said. The closest I have said is that your paradigm seems too small to be aware of the point I was going to make. Beyond that, none of it referred to you directly. Oh wait, I called you self righteous, and so far by the response I have received I am standing by that.

You are the one on the crusade. You insult me, condescend me, take things I didn't even say and try to use them against me. All on the basis that I am far too self-righteous and prideful to see any other point than my own.

You're damn right I am on a crusade. A crusade to get people to open their eyes and see what has been accepted for art for decades and centuries and that games fall in that criteria. What is so hard about that? Why are so many people so stubborn about accepting that art can be created in game format? Especially, other gamers that have constant contact with the media in question? What social stigma causes this rediculous behavior? My closest guess is elitism but I don't think that is the complete answer.
I think it has something to do with how 50+'s year old all have this "being computer illiterate is cool" bond between them and refuse to learn the simplest tasks because then they won't be allowed in the cool old people's club anymore. If a bunch of people started running around saying "paintings are not art" would the painters out there not get up in arms about it? Would they be "pretentious" if they did? No, because by the definition of art, paintings are included. By that same definition, games are included. It is not the ones saying that games are art, but the ones saying that they cannot be art or are not art that are pretentious. It's making excluding rules outside the current acceptable term of art "just because" they don't like it for whatever reason.

I am speaking as an artist of drawing and writing mostly. I also have toyed around with photography, music, and recently games. I see gaming as a collaboration of all of these fields. It actually encompasses and directly deals with all of these categories for one amalgam product at the end. Not many games can claim a stance as art. But not many photos, books, paintings, or sculptures can claim a stance as art either. Art is when you do something exceptional. A book is a just a book, but an exceptional one gets the honor of being seen as art. Not by society but by the person who perceives it. Art can inspire and that is usually its easiest way of determining its potential as art. Based on how many people are growing up today and wanting to get into the field of making games, I would say that video games are not only art but successful at what art is.

 

[starwarsgeek]

While I completely agree that games are art, I do find the discussion to be pretentious at times. To me, art is a description of format, not quality.

So, to best describe my stance: Yes, they are art, but being art is not in itself a big deal.

 

[hooksashands]

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.

Well said.

If saying videogames are art will convince a bunch of assholes in congress that they should remain protected under First Amendment rights, fine, whatever. Then yes, they're art. Other than that, who cares.

 

[conflictofinterests]

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.

Well, I think it's more that the medium possesses the potential to be art, and not so much that every piece made in it has some supreme artistic merit, speaking as someone who has been in a beginner's 3D design class (read "clay and papier mache for dummies"). Michelangelo made some pretty nifty things in the medium of sculpture. The things my classmates and I did? Maybe nifty in the same sense as a car wreck is nifty.

 

[magnuslion]

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.

You just answered your own question. What "is" art is really no more than someones interpretation of whether or not something is or is not art. I think the more valid question is "Can games be art?". If games can be art, can be interpreted by a group of people as being art, they deserve the same protection as other forms of expression. You can say the Mona Lisa is art. I can say that it was Da Vinci painting himself as a woman, and that its creepy. You can say the Roman Colosseum is just a big old dilapidated building and should be demolished. I can say that it is beautiful, a historical piece of Roman art.

 

[Nietz]

Honestly, this debate seems almost impossible to get ahead in.

But, just to throw my two cents in the pool:

I believe that labelling something as art or not art is entirely subjective(as with most labels/opinions). So I'm having trouble justifying any "form" entirely artistic(like saying that movies/books/paintings are art and meaning that the form of the piece is what determines if it's art or not). Thus I believe that everyone should technically be able to appreciate anything as art, and no one should really be able to tell anyone otherwise. The only reason I'm actually trying to keep up with the debate is because of the supreme court hearing thingy going on across the pond.

There are some video games I consider works of art, and some I don't. Same goes with paintings, books, movies and everything. Heck, I consider a beautifully functioning engine a work of art. But you don't see them hanging in art galleries.... often.