But Is It Art?

[ThePerfectionist]

Okay, I apologize for bringing this stupid topic up yet again, but as someone that has basically clapped his hands over his ears and ignored the entire Games-As-Art debate, I have a question for those of you that willingly participated in that drivel. This question stems from a thread on here that I would link to if I wasn't pathologically lazy, containing an absolute wall of text talking about how the people who worked on ME3 are not artists and have no artistic integrity. I'm not going to talk about that thread other than to mention it, because if I wanted to do that, I'd just reply there.

Here, in brief, is my question: Where do you differentiate between what is not art, and what is simply bad art? While this problem crops up in every entertainment industry, I've seen it the most often in ours; people are quick to dismiss a terrible game (or even an excellent one with a few serious flaws, like ME3) as "not art", while defending that, as a whole, video games ARE art.

To those people, let me be presumptuous; the impression that I get is that you think that if this travesty of a game (whatever it may be) is considered "art" alongside games that you think are good examples, it will somehow denigrate the latter. It's a reasonable assumption to make; if you went into an art gallery and alongside the Monet there was a painting someone had done in his own excrement, you would probably think less of painting as a whole and of that gallery in particular. But (and here's the part that's going to get me in trouble), you don't get to define art for other people. If you're going to argue that video games are art, then you have to take ALL games under that blanket. You can't pick and choose.

Anyway, that's my argument against those people. If you aren't one of those people, leave an explanation below for where (or if) you draw the line between bad art and not art.

And now I've said "art" too many times and it's gone weird on me.

Art Art Art.

 

[TrevHead]

It's a creative medium so yes, although some games are more creative then others just like indie and manufactured pop music.

 

[sanquin]

Games can be art. Not nearly all games are art, but they can be. However even when a game is art, they're only art third. First they're a product to be sold to make money. Second they're a medium through which to entertain yourself. Only third can it be art. The first and second are more important than the third. And people tend to forget that...a lot. As a product to make money off of, customers have -every- right to complain when they're not satisfied. As a medium for entertainment, customers have -every- right to complain when the game isn't entertaining in the way it promised to be. Heck, even as art people have -every- right to critique it and call for change.

On that last part, would it be paintings, instead of people telling the painter to change he would just not be able to sell his work and go bankrupt. In games, the company at least gets a 'second chance' to give the people what they want and keep them paying them.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Every video game is art without question. Like every movie or song out there. When you play a bad game, it's just bad art.

Direct comparison to make it simple.

GTA-The Godfather-Jay Z's The Blueprint

Call of Duty-Blade 2- Party Music

Too Human- Dardevil Movie- Rebecca Black's Friday song

 

[Baldr]

Your missing a word "high".

There a big difference between art and high art, every video game large or small, good or bad, simple or complex falls under a definition of art. Yet the lines between pop art, commercial art, high art and so forth are not so easily defined. It makes for a much better debate than "Are games Art?"

 

[DoPo]

Here, in brief, is my question: Where do you differentiate between what is not art, and what is simply bad art?

It's about being creative and about the intent. To put it oversimplified. That is art. It should attempt to be pleasing on some level and that should be a big part of the focus. Whether it succeeds or falls short determines, if it's good or bad art.

So, games are art, if they attempt to go deeper than just some gameplay. The medium as a whole can be vehicle for art. Whether somebody makes proper use of it is a different question. In the same vein, writing is artistic, and yet a science paper or a forum message isn't really work of art (most of the time).

Same goes for TV/films - movies and the evening news are clearly distinct.

A painting:

Spoiler

and a stamp

Spoiler

are the same in many respects. But serve different purpose.

So with all this said, there is no reason why one game

Spoiler

can't be more artistic than another game

Spoiler

So there.

 

[DioWallachia]

Some music to start the asskicking gears of passion for videogames.


You should start first by doing what movie critics did when selecting a movie that represents the whole medium, as in "The Most Triumphant Example of Movies as an Art Form".

Their choice was "Citizen Kane"

Now, as you know, CK doesnt have a GROUND-BREAKING story to begin with, actually its quite a simple story, it is just HOW is that story is told. CK didnt even bring anything new to the cinema, it just took ideas of previous movies mixed with ideas that Orson Welles wanted to do even if they were actually impractical on paper. But they choosed it because it ENCAPSULATED everything that represents cinema (the art of visual storytelling) in that era.

I am pretty sure that after the creation of CK there are already MANY movies that tell the story with just pure visuals and succeded (A movie MAY fail regardless if it is art or not. Being art alone doesnt imply merit)

So, again, we must ask: what is "The Most Triumphant Example of Games as an Art Form"? But what do games have that movies dont? games depend on visuals but ALSO on gameplay AND interactivity (because they are unique to this medium) to sends its message.

What games succeed in the particular trait? What games have everything that represents games as a whole?

 

[FalloutJack]

Look, art is a touchy subject even from the POV of artists and critics over such things as paintings and music as is. There's going to be the same if not MORE of a conundrum over something which is images in motion with music and acting.

Bottom Line: Art - like beauty - is always going to be in the eye of the beolher, no matter the form it takes.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Games can be art. Not nearly all games are art, but they can be. However even when a game is art, they're only art third. First they're a product to be sold to make money. Second they're a medium through which to entertain yourself. Only third can it be art. The first and second are more important than the third. And people tend to forget that...a lot. As a product to make money off of, customers have -every- right to complain when they're not satisfied. As a medium for entertainment, customers have -every- right to complain when the game isn't entertaining in the way it promised to be. Heck, even as art people have -every- right to critique it and call for change.

On that last part, would it be paintings, instead of people telling the painter to change he would just not be able to sell his work and go bankrupt. In games, the company at least gets a 'second chance' to give the people what they want and keep them paying them.

I... I agree with everything you said.

Well done.

 

[krazykidd]

Gah . Everything is art . That is how poorly the word "art" is defined . Everything a person makes is art , it's designed after their creativity . Now if it's good or bad art is left to be determined , but it is art regardless .

Now can we stop talkig about it please?

 

[axlryder]

I consider art to be some form of creative or personal expression channeled through some kind of medium (even if that medium happens to be your own fecal matter). In that regard, I think things like video games can not be art, just as I think music or drawings can not be art. As an animator, I've drawn and animated things that bored me to tears and I absolutely did not want to do or basically got out of a manual. I wouldn't really consider these animations to be "art", because I wasn't really putting anything personal or creative into them. That said, I don't get to define art for other people, even if it's my own art. I find art itself is a purely subjective thing, even when it comes to deciding what constitutes it.

In light of those views, I can understand where people are coming from when they say COD isn't "art". If every single person that showed up to make that game were simply following a series of soulless steps in order to acquire a paycheck, I don't think I'd want to call it art either. Obviously that's just my perspective on the matter.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

If dubstep can be music then games sure as hell are art.

 

[Fishyash]

TBH by its simple definition games are art. There's literally no two ways about it. There's a word for the kind of art a video game is though... it's something like Gesamtkunstwerk?

Kind of like film (video games seem to be trying to become an evolution of film I think), video games come to create a setting that uses multiple mediums, put together to become an amalgamation of art.

Video games however add an angle that film did not: game mechanics.

I think that video games so far have made much more progress in graphics, music, and cinematic elements, than the game itself. The only game I am anticipating that might actually use the game to accompany its aesthetics appropriately is Dark Souls.

But because of that being my perception of games as an art form, I tend to look at games with the most well thought out and designed mechanics and design as works of art (for example, Tetris). Rather than games that either aren't games at all (dear esther) or games that try and convey something that isn't really done by the game (braid).

 

[Dr. Cakey]

Your missing a word "high".

There a big difference between art and high art, every video game large or small, good or bad, simple or complex falls under a definition of art. Yet the lines between pop art, commercial art, high art and so forth are not so easily defined. It makes for a much better debate than "Are games Art?"

This is probably the crux of the entire debate. Nobody knows if when someone says 'art' they mean 'art' or 'Art'. So some people will say video games aren't art when they mean that most (or all, if the person is wrong) games display little to no artistic merit. Then you have to define what constitutes artistic merit, but...

 

[sanquin]

I... I agree with everything you said.

Well done.

Thanks. Took me a while to formulate my thoughts into coherent words. ^^;;

 

[Nazulu]

Gah . Everything is art . That is how poorly the word "art" is defined . Everything a person makes is art , it's designed after their creativity . Now if it's good or bad art is left to be determined , but it is art regardless .

Now can we stop talkig about it please?

Yep, that's exactly how I feel. I consider anything that's meant to entertain, art.

 

[peruvianskys]

If you're going to argue that video games are art, then you have to take ALL games under that blanket. You can't pick and choose.

That's ridiculous. If I say that White Chicks is not art, I have to also say that Citizen Kane isn't? "Art" as an existential concept can be found in all forms of media, as can worthless cash-grabbing garbage - the latter making up the large majority, I might add. Some video games are art but most are not; the same can be said of films, songs, paintings, hand-carved dildos, or chess boards.

The idea that the label "art" must be stamped across the board or not at all is just another expression of the absurd cultural nihilism and boring relativism that has accompanied postmodernism. Real art challenges us, expresses to us complex and enriching emotion and shows us what's at the heart of our shared condition. I think Braid did that fantastically; I think Transformers: War for Cybertron did not. One is art, the other isn't, and if you really want to argue that they have to be held on equal ground or even in the same category, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Thespian]

[snipped the OP]

I'm going to underline the basest misconception that pretty much everyone has with the word 'Art'. This same misconception is the sole cause for the term art being tossed and thrown around like a fucking ragdoll just to suit the needs of whoever is arguing at the moment. It's a word that's been whored out and manipulated for the sole purpose of EXCLUDING whatever someone doesn't like.
The misconception I speak of is the fact that Art is a qualitative term of categorization - Not a quantitative term.
This means it denotes what something is, it doesn't show how much it is on a scale.

In other words, the word 'art' is like the word 'fruit'. There is a certain set of requirements needed. If it ticks all the boxes, then it's a fruit. No question. You can't just say "Hey, I fucking hate peaches, they're all gross and fuzzy. They aren't a fruit anymore. They aren't good enough to be." because that is not how it works.

Likewise, you can't say "Hey, the ending to mass effect 3 was very poorly written and didn't have a good message. It's not art." and you certainly can't say that just because the ending wasn't art, the whole thing wasn't.

Sadly, art is art. A whole bunch of crappy, thoughtless things are art. The Mona Lisa is art. Harry Potter is art. Mega Man is art. Two and a half men is art. Video games are art. Those Justin Bieber songs that everyone unconditionally hates are art. Twilight is art. Fifty Shades of Grey is... Well, royally fucked up, but it's also art.

The term's meaning has just been muddled to fuck because of it's usage by a few generations of uppity, exclusionary critics. Compare it with sports. No one says that bad athletes "aren't athletes" any more, or that they aren't "fine athletes" or any other vague bullshit. You know what sports fans call them? Bad athletes. They play sports for money, thus they can be considered as such - Doesn't stop them from being shit.
My point? That we need to stop doing this with art. Bad art is bad. Laugh at it, make fun of art, analyze it, learn from it, whatever. But don't whip out "It's not art because I don't like it" as some sort of bullshit condemnation just because you lack the eloquence to justify it's flaws. Everything starts on equal ground of being... I dunno, abstract entertainment or mental stimulation that uses fiction and emotional context to engage with an audience and provide a message. Something along those lines is basically the definition for art.