Wow, I'm gone for a day and the thread finally takes off. I would like to note that I'm not out to pick a fight, but I am hoping for some intelligent discussion/debate. So let's go.
Veylon said:
I'll take a shot at this. I have two main lines of criticism.
1) Video games are not art in the same way an art museum is not art. They contain art, but they are more of a collection than art itself.
2) Video games are primarily a tool. A hammer can be artfully arranged as art, but you can't use it for its purpose at the same time. Video games are primarily used or played actively, whereas art is primarily seen, heard, watched, or read passively. Videos or recordings of games can be art, cutscenes can be art, but the core gameplay, that which makes a game a game? I don't think so.
Both of these thoughts place limits on the idea of art. If Videogames are art, what is not art? Is going to the park art? Is an etch-a-sketch art? Are legos art? If videogames fall within the boundaries of art, then what are the boundaries of art? I've marked my thoughts, I'd like to hear other.
1) So anything that has multiple artistic aspects is a collection, but not art? What about film? That is the culmination of storytelling, writing, acting, cinematography, music, and plenty other artistic forms. For that matter, what about Shakespeare? He wrote plays, which also included acting, writing, music, and more. Surely you will not say that only his written scripts are art, and not his performed plays?
2) This is one I kind of take issue with, to be honest. Since art has always been a passive experience, being an active part of it disqualifies games from being art? In other words, what has not been can never be? I find that to be a very limiting mindset, one that restricts art from evolving. Art has constantly changed over human history, so why would we base what it can be solely on what it has been? Gameplay is part of an artistic experience, even if it's not an artistic experience in and of itself, just as staring at a piece of paper is not art unless there are words on it.
Swarley said:
Art is subjective, so there is no actual arguments for or against video games being art. If you believe its art then it is art, and the same against it. As soon as people realize this we can get over this nonsense.
JAWZxZ said:
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.
Problem being, there are certain mediums that are generally considered art, but without recognition of artistic value, said mediums would not have been able to develop. Even the novel was once looked down upon, but its eventual recognition as art allowed it to reach its true potential. If an art form is disregarded by society, great works go unnoticed and great potential is lost. The value of art is subjective, yes, but the potential for it is not, and this must be recognized if the true artistic potential of video games is to ever be reached.
tlozoot said:
Art is inherently authorial. Video games give the player freedom and control, diluting and distorting the authorial vision of the artist.
This is Ebert's problem, however most player freedom is an illusion and what the player does is usually accounted for by the designer. If you play the game the way it's meant to be played, then you should still get that authorial vision. For Shakespeare's sake, don't read only every third line of King Lear.
But yeah...art is subjective, so this is all kind of moot. Ebert then backtracked and said they can't be 'High-art' which is pretty much just a bullshit pretentious term for 'that which only the academics deem art.'
Yeah, control in games is a complete illusion. The fact is, no matter what choices you make in Mass Effect, none of them will make Bioware scratch their heads and say, "Dang it, he wasn't supposed to choose that! What do we do now?" Every possibility in a video game is specifically designed by the creator. The player cannot make his/her own path, but simply choose which pre-made path will be followed. It is the illusion of freedom that makes video games such a unique storytelling art form, but it is just that: an illusion.
Not G. Ivingname said:
Games are toys.
Toys can't be art.
Therefor, games can't be art.
It can be argued weather or not video games are toys, but the arguement is pointless since toys can be art as well.
Have you seen what people have done with Legos?
So... did you mean to contradict yourself there?
But anyway, who says games are nothing more than toys? Really? Has a game ever made you feel something? Has the experience ever done anything more than amuse you for a few minutes? If not, play Final Fantasy VII, Bioshock, or Shadow of the Colossus and talk to me then. Because I can guarantee you, no toy can do what video games have done.
cursedseishi said:
Art is subjective, but games can be art, its just a massive amount of them have been BAD art. Some games, however, do present good artistic style (Okami), and art itself can be created through CGI, so why can't games count? White Knight Chronicles has some amazing shots in it, as did Shadow of The Colossus, and some lies in the execution, like Flower, or even Love (the mmo).
There you go: good show. One of the arguments that irritates me is the idea that only
some video games are art, as if lack of quality somehow means something is devoid of artistic value or effort. In other words, there is no bad art. Which is crap. Whether the creation of something involves artistic creativity is not up for debate: even the Eragon movie was art. It failed in every conceivable way, but that does not mean it's not art, simply that it sucked, like 90% of everything else out there (Sturgeon's Law).
no oneder said:
Hate to be the party spoiler, but I'm on the games-are-not-art side. Sorry
I can give out some of my arguments out, but they would end up being called bogus, or stupid, or both.
Well I don't intend to do that. As I said before, I simply want to discuss it, to have a respectful debate. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but please don't think I simply want to insult your ideas.
Anyway, I will end with saying that I do believe that interpretation and appreciation of art is subjective. What is and is not art, on the other hand, is not. I will not claim to have a definitive and absolute definition of art, but I think if it is made to creatively express ideas and involves the creative process, it is art. Considering these things are requirements for video games, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered art as a general principle of the medium.
P.S. I generally agree with the comments on this page about Roger Ebert. I don't think he has a very good perspective on movies, and even when he does, his reviews are not well-written. But his regretting his comments on video games helped a bit. Take a break from the pompous arrogance, replace it with humility, and some respect is gained. Always better to admit ignorance than claim superiority based on it.
