BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

[Vault101]

I...kind of agree. Not everything has to be high art, y'know. Sometimes it's good to just turn off your brain and enjoy. Granted SOMETIMES is the key word there, but even so, not every game has to be some deep, philosophical issue or the piece that starts the revolution.

I applaud the BBC for actually approaching this maturely. I realize that may not be saying much since they're only being compared to Fox News, but even so.

while you do have a point, I think that attitude could be somthing of an excuse to simply turn out a GTA or COD every year...rather than actually "try" at anything more than that

thats why it annoys me, because its a type of thinking that (in a way) discourages pushing the boundries...which IMO is one of the most important things when it comes to whatever "art" is

 

[BakedZnake]

Honestly, go play the Witcher for a game that can make you question who you are, the world around you, humanity even. No good, evil, right or wrong.

Is it okay to kill something because it's not like you. Something we're struggling with even today, racial, societal and cultural acceptance. That game makes me think and question how we deal with those issues.

Though that's just my opinion.

Since the witcher is based off Andrzej Sapkowski novels and short stories, which aren't themselves considered art, so why would the game be? What is with the obssession of Games ARE art, anyone who say otherwise is wrong, what is so special to be labelled art? Is it because this is a gaming website and its the favoured media? All games have been inspired by books, films, music and art movements. I can honestly say I have not played a game which was completely original or moving which I haven't already seen elsewhere in another form.

This is a kind of arguement where fans of darts, snooker, curling call their activities sports. I still prefer Clarkson's definition of art "for something to be art, it must have no purpose other than itself, no function"

 

[RaNDM G]

He's got a point. Of all the games that are out there, Braid and Silent Hill 2 are the only ones I can think of which you can actually debate about.

 

[The Wooster]

Though the games-as-art debate remains as popular as ever, you do have to wonder if there's any point to it. "Art," both as a concept and a definition, is often arbitrary and nebulous, there will never be any real consensus on the matter. A far more interesting question is why acquiring the "art" label, a label you'd be sharing with such luminaries as Tracey Emin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin], matters to the gaming community in the first place.

Because the sooner games are recognized as a legitimate medium for artistic expression, the sooner we'll get better games.

Really, I don't think it's the public we need to convince that games are art, I think it's the gaming community itself. There is so much potential within games that is not being tapped because developers are content with just pumping yet another FPS with 'splosions, gore, maybe some zombies thrown in, but never developing those ideas further. Sure, those 'splosions, gore, n' zombie games are fun and all, but there's no reason why we shouldn't demand more from this medium.

To go "oh, why does it matter if they're art? Just have fun!" (on a gaming centric site like The Escapist no less) is just undermining the whole potential that they have to be more than just fun. There are ideas that have yet to be tapped, that have yet to even be considered because developers just end up making your standard fare of games.

The fact that the industry needs the approval of people who neither know nor care about games in order to improve is quite sad actually.

 

[Astoria]

You know I really think people who believe games aren't art think that all games are like CoD or GTA. They seem to be the only games ever brought up in these arguments. If someone considers movies, novels ect as art then they should consider video games as art.

 

[Wuggy]

"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."

I don't agree with this definition at all. Art doesn't have to ask profound questions, and art doesn't need to change lives with every piece. Demanding that is quite ridiculous and really narrows the scope of what can be considered art and what can not. Hell, by that definition I think we would define philosophical literature art more often than paintings. By that definition Discourse of Method (by René Descartes) is more of an artpiece than the Mona Lisa.

Art is subjective. The definition of art is subjective. To me, art can be something that's aesthetically beautiful but doesn't have a real meaning behind it. Concept Art is Art to me. Illustration is Art to me. Rock 'n' Roll is art to me. Entertainment in general is more or less an artform in itself.

 

[Ace2401]

He's got a point. Of all the games that are out there, Braid and Silent Hill 2 are the only ones I can think of which you can actually debate about.

I don't see how those two are even debatable, that is to say they are both works of art. Especially Silent Hill 2, which obviously neither of those two have played. That game is a work of art like no other I've personally experienced. And it came out ten years ago. Honestly, whenever I see this come up I think this: "Silent Hill 2. /tread"

Silent Hill 2 definitely meets that guys' criteria of asking all the big questions, and then some. Every single argument I've seen against games as art always say some variant of "no game has done X, so games can't be art." Silent Hill 2 has done everything that those arguments claim games haven't done, and did it in a way no other media could hope to ever reproduce. That's why Silent Hill 2 is a work of art, and it's the game that set the example for what games can be considered art. It's the game the proved games can be art, you could say.

Also, this:

Art is subjective. The definition of art is subjective.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Portal
Audiosurf

"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us.

Which of these games haven't made you question some aspect of your life?

I have played those two games, and neither of them made me question something about my life.

However there has been no movie, painting, sculpture, song or game that ever has. That does not though mean I don't consider those things art, my definition of art is just different...

...which is apparently the case for everyone, so this whole "x is art" thing doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Has everyone forgotten The Void, Zeno Clash, Cargo! The Quest for Gravity, Pathologic, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, or, hell, even LSD. That gentleman should do some research on the games of actual artistic merit. Who in the hell thinks that Minecraft is art, you may as well say that a black canvas, or the standard square block of marble is art.

The artistic revolution has been going on for years, guys, and you've missed it.

 

[Treblaine]

The fact that the industry needs the approval of people who neither know nor care about games in order to improve is quite sad actually.

Unfortunately it is these kinds of people who set and enforce censorship and age restrictions, they ARE affecting our industry. We NEED to get them on board if we are to move forward.

We have the situation where the ultra-violent "torture-porn" Saw series have the same age rating as the Halo series.

 

[The Wooster]

Games are a medium as are paint, film and writing. Not every painting or book is considered art by everyone, and far more has been put to canvas and page, and likely dismissed as "not art", than all the games produced. If there are any that claim no art exists in games, I can only say they've not looked hard enough.

Spoiler: Some may not call this art, but I know what I like

 

[Woodsey]

"In terms of storytelling, a game like Grand Theft Auto is enormously complex and works on loads of different levels, and it looks amazing too."

Oh for the love of... NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Its a crap example of storytelling (and writing, for the most part) in games.

OT: I can get behind the idea, even if that example is fucking stupid.

 

[Funkysandwich]

As far as I'm concerned there is art in games, so that should qualify games as art. Think of games as virtual installation art, if you will.

 

[Roserari]

The entire stinking point of art is that you can not define it. Some people call modern paintings art, when I think they're just made by an autistic four year old with no arms or legs. That's not art, that's dribble. And yet, people call it art.

Games ... they're art. GET OVER IT.

 

[Plinglebob]

But here's a kicker, the most popular and usually anticipated forms of all things classified as 'art' are thing's like Comics, Trashy novels, Big Budget movies, Generic Corporate Pop music.

Yet these things have ALL fallen under the label of art just because of what they are.

They fall under that label in terms of being taught said media. Yet (in the UK) video games are not offered that same privilege? Despite some utter gems that have no doubt talked to people and really connected with them in ways that the 'popular' forms of media currently under that label wouldn't ever manage.

In the guys defence, he said a lot of these don't count as art either.

Because the sooner games are recognized as a legitimate medium for artistic expression, the sooner we'll get better games.

*cough*Transformers 3*cough*

Personally I agree with him. While I do think that some games could be called works of art while still keeping a straight face, and games should be considered art in a legal sense, the majority of games put out are meant to excite and titilate us for X period of time and in that regards they have the same artistic value as Porn. I have no problem with this seeing as I'm fine with people making/playing games for this reason just like I have no real issue with those that enjoyed Transformers 3 (and who doesn't enjoy porn).

I think the big problem with this debate is that fans and the industry are pushing too hard, too fast. Remember, it took films 40 to 50 years to be considered a true artform and then even longer to fully escape censorship issues. Expecting games to do the same in 30 is optimistic at best, naive at worse.

Oh, and Minecraft isn't art, its a computer based artistic medium and on its own is as much art as MS Paint.

Oh just to inform everyone outside of the UK: BBC Radio 4 is considered the 'older generation' radio show. They usually blab on and hold debates and when a topic that they don't understand nor have any desire to comes on they usually waffle about how ridiculous it is and rip it to shreds all the while giving little pats on the back to each other about how great it was in their day.

I suppose I'm just gonna have to take the bait and ask do you ever actually listen to radio 4? I find it hard to believe that a station that has a program about the tactics of anonymous and the legality of hacktivism (Click On, Monday 31/10/11 4:30pm) with previous programs doing things a history on social networking starting from Colleges in the 60s and 70s could be called what you said. If anything, its a damn sight better use of the licence fee then the crap on Radio 1.

Edit:

made by an autistic four year old with no arms or legs. That's not art, that's dribble.

Sounds like a lot of games that get pushed out to me.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If anyone tells you something isn't art, ask them to define art. They won't be able to so simply say that they clearly don't know what art is and cannot know what is or is not art. Done.

As for why its important, the term "art" brings some legitimacy, games are often viewed as kids stuff and not legitimate. I Think the fact that the IEEE has a game sig where people with Doctorates discuss games is enough to blow that assertion out of the water and so far into space that it slingshots around Venus but that's just me.

 

[The Wooster]

Give me a game with the level of characterisation, depth , writing and nuance that a series like i don't know
-the wire
-band of brothers
-the sopranos
-game of thrones
-boardwalk empire


Whilst the medium may have potential the current 6-10 hour length of most games is holding that potential back, and little things like facial expression and real supporting characters need work in our medium.

Sure a couple of games might of reached the level, but on the whole the majority of titles (an even higher percentage than hollywood) are primarily culturally devoid popcorn fluff (at least in the triple A, and before anybody calls me on this, we release 2 modern fps every year that play the same and have no story, and half a dozen sports games every year suffering the same issue, im not saying anything hugely wrong here).

I've seen paintings in restaurants and office buildings that are just as likely shoveled out for profit like the games you complain about, and I find it hard to believe that the quality/crap ratio is significantly better.

For every movie and tv series you claim above, there's a truckload of formulaic comedies, crime procedurals, and reality shows. One need only look at what's out there ("SyFy Originals", for one) and you'll find far more stuff you'd wished you'd never wasted time on than things that could even remotely qualify for your definition of art.

Literature? I'm sure there's enough people on this forum to make a list of bad works that you wouldn't be able to read in a lifetime.

Music? Pottery? Poetry? Is every single piece of it art? Is even half of what exists art?

If something is made to entertain, and someone later finds it artistic, what matter the format? What matter how long it took to make, or whether the person did it for money?