Bogus Arguments Against Video Games as Art
- Thread starter Thaius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People say games are not art because these people are elitists stick-up-butt types who associate things like games with idiocy and lack of refinement. Likely the same people who say fart jokes are not real humor. Maybe not the smartest, but if it makes you laugh it makes you laugh.
And compare games like Red Dead and Oblivion to say...anything by supposed artist Andy Warhol. If a soup can is more art than all video games, then being art is not a good thing.
And compare games like Red Dead and Oblivion to say...anything by supposed artist Andy Warhol. If a soup can is more art than all video games, then being art is not a good thing.
wouldn't putting a burning bag of poop on someones doorstep and ringing their doorbell and running count as art then?tlozoot said:
I can give out some of my arguments out, but they would end up being called bogus, or stupid, or both.
People have many different opinions on art.
Art in a conventional sense, paintings, sculptures, drawings, sketches and things like that can be art, but to a cook, a finely prepared meal would be art to him.
A carpenter could create a perfect piece of furniture, and that would be art as well.
You don't necessarily need to be a creator to appreciate your own view of art.
Art to me, is something that messes with your head, a good psychological horror movie, a game, anything that makes me thing hard. Dali's sketches affect me greatly, but so did Portal.
In summary, your opinion is your own. Any attempt by any party would have a hard time to change your opinion, as your opinion is your own mind's way of perceiving something, and perception is an extremely hard thing to change.
The purpose of arguing is pointless, and who gave you the right to question someone's perception or try to alter it to match your own way of thinking, as your own way of thinking (to everyone) seems like the right one.
Art in a conventional sense, paintings, sculptures, drawings, sketches and things like that can be art, but to a cook, a finely prepared meal would be art to him.
A carpenter could create a perfect piece of furniture, and that would be art as well.
You don't necessarily need to be a creator to appreciate your own view of art.
Art to me, is something that messes with your head, a good psychological horror movie, a game, anything that makes me thing hard. Dali's sketches affect me greatly, but so did Portal.
In summary, your opinion is your own. Any attempt by any party would have a hard time to change your opinion, as your opinion is your own mind's way of perceiving something, and perception is an extremely hard thing to change.
The purpose of arguing is pointless, and who gave you the right to question someone's perception or try to alter it to match your own way of thinking, as your own way of thinking (to everyone) seems like the right one.
Swing and a miss. Two strikes, one more and you're out.Furious Styles said:
The point being that whether or not something is art, is just that, an opinion
Well, people say it is entertainment rather than art, but anything considered an art form can generally also be considered entertainment.
I saw the new A-Team movie the other day. It certainly was not art, nor should it have been. It was entertainment. Guns were fired, explosions occurred, people fell over and died- done. On the other hand, I doubt there would be very many people who would make the claim that a movie like Pan's Labyrinth wasn't art.
Same thing with literature. Almost nobody would refer to the pulp novels of the early 20th century as art. However, I don't think there's anyone that wouldn't think that Upton Sinclair's The Jungle wasn't art.
I could give examples of this sort of thing with almost every art form, but it would simply be redundant.
There are certain games that could be considered art. Others are not art. The problem with defining games as art is that the media has yet to develop its standards as to what is and is not art.
I saw the new A-Team movie the other day. It certainly was not art, nor should it have been. It was entertainment. Guns were fired, explosions occurred, people fell over and died- done. On the other hand, I doubt there would be very many people who would make the claim that a movie like Pan's Labyrinth wasn't art.
Same thing with literature. Almost nobody would refer to the pulp novels of the early 20th century as art. However, I don't think there's anyone that wouldn't think that Upton Sinclair's The Jungle wasn't art.
I could give examples of this sort of thing with almost every art form, but it would simply be redundant.
There are certain games that could be considered art. Others are not art. The problem with defining games as art is that the media has yet to develop its standards as to what is and is not art.
Pretty much this.SomeBritishDude said:
Beauty in the eye of the beholder, and all. Personally, I don't view games themselves as art. They contain art, and can be used to form some very impressive art too, but they are primarily a tool for entertainment.
I personally don't think videogames are art. They can undoubtedly carry a message, but I wouldn't define that as art. They are games, with unbreakable rules and principles that are placed on the user, who is supposed to be entertained. Then again, I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what art is, and, perversely, the fact that there are contrasting opinions over video games as an art form may actually make it a form of art in itself, if not in the traditional sense.
Just thinking about it leads to an endless cycle of circular logic that makes my brain dribble out of my nose, so I'm not going to put any more than that.
Just thinking about it leads to an endless cycle of circular logic that makes my brain dribble out of my nose, so I'm not going to put any more than that.
Ever since he took the 'ban this amoral filth' and 'it fetishises a young girl' approach to Kick Ass, demonstrating in many ways that he missed the entire point of the movie, I would tend to agree.CobraX said:
Unless the movie has some "deep" social message to it Ebert will hate your movie. If it's violent, chances are Ebert will hate your movie. As I said before - he down right sucks at reviewing movies. I still remember when him and siskel read the names in the credits of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" and called them all bad people because they made a slasher movie. What a bunch of idoits.MiracleOfSound said: