Can we call games art when we're still obsessed with popularity/sales/market shares/attach rates?

[Contextualizer]

Let me preface with this: I've been playing games for over two decades now. I've owned every major console since the Atari 2600 and my Steam account is worth almost $3500. I hope you understand that I'm not exactly an outsider or a hater of video games

But right now, we treat video games more like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus instead of treating them like John Coltrane and Maurice Ravel. When the dominant analytical narrative is obsessed with sales success, how can we call games art? Sure, we like to try to elevate the discussion to pseudo-intellectual diatribes about the many flaws in game design (most likely in a poorly executed attempt to emulate Yahtzee), but it honestly doesn't sound too different from Twilight fans talking about what they enjoy.

So why do we get upset when people say video games cannot be art when we don't even treat them like art?

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Honestly, while I am a constant person who's saying games are art, I have to agree with you. We don't treat games in the mainstream like art, and for the most part, they are just shooting things and e-peen waving competitions, so why WOULD anyone think that they're art?

Indie games are treated like art, and are art, though. So don't generalize the ENTIRE industry.

EDIT: Whoops, got a bit sidetracked there. We can, though, because that's what movies and music are concerned with too, and we still call them art.

 

[Contextualizer]

Honestly, while I am a constant person who's saying games are art, I have to agree with you. We don't treat games in the mainstream like art, and for the most part, they are just shooting things and e-peen waving competitions, so why WOULD anyone think that they're art?

Indie games are treated like art, and are art, though. So don't generalize the ENTIRE industry.

EDIT: Whoops, got a bit sidetracked there. We can, though, because that's what movies and music are concerned with too, and we still call them art.

The huge difference is that Beethoven, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Moby Dick are all incredibly well known to people who aren't very into music, film, or literature. These artifacts are part of mainstream culture but they are still art.

A tiny fraction of people who play games being aware about indie art games isn't exactly the same thing.

 

[likalaruku]

But right now, we treat video games more like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus instead of treating them like John Coltrane and Maurice Ravel.

Who, who, who, & who? Okey, I've heard of the first two via forum rants, but that last two...I got nothin.'

Art: Something someone makes that other people enjoy looking at. This can include food.

 

[CrashBang]

yes.

why? cause that's all every artists wants, to be noticed. for the masses to aprpreciate their work. or to become rich it's all the same.

Yup. Music is art. Or at least most music is art, and all music fans are obssessed with the popularity of their favourite band/genre. This doesn't change anything. A person creates a piece of art and the public do with it what they will

 

[Contextualizer]

But right now, we treat video games more like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus instead of treating them like John Coltrane and Maurice Ravel.

Who, who, who, & who?

Expand your horizons! It's difficult for outsiders to think gamers to understand art (and culture) if they are so ignorant about it. We lose credibility because of it.

Art: Something someone makes that other people enjoy looking at. This can include food.

Anthropologists would disagree with you. Art can be something that people do not enjoy looking at. Art can be horrifying and distasteful.

There's really no connection of enjoyment to what cultures have defined art.

 

[LeonLethality]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

 

[Contextualizer]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

You must not enjoy forums very much even though you have over 13,000 posts!

No one cares (at least I hope they don't), but I think it's an interesting discussion point that no one has made so far.

 

[Kurokami]

Let me preface with this: I've been playing games for over two decades now. I've owned every major console since the Atari 2600 and my Steam account is worth almost $3500. I hope you understand that I'm not exactly an outsider or a hater of video games

But right now, we treat video games more like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus instead of treating them like John Coltrane and Maurice Ravel. When the dominant analytical narrative is obsessed with sales success, how can we call games art? Sure, we like to try to elevate the discussion to pseudo-intellectual diatribes about the many flaws in game design (most likely in a poorly executed attempt to emulate Yahtzee), but it honestly doesn't sound too different from Twilight fans talking about what they enjoy.

So why do we get upset when people say video games cannot be art when we don't even treat them like art?

Speak for yourself is the only answer I can really come up with, no offense intended but I truly don't understand how you've been playing games or perhaps I simply haven't grasped your point. I treat games like art, like most art I can't judge what I don't see and I suppose popular games are more likely to catch my attention but that doesn't mean I don't judge them, or that they don't deserve to be considered as such. I even respect many of the good points of games I dislike and play old games people recommend.

 

[Mcupobob]

Honestly, while I am a constant person who's saying games are art, I have to agree with you. We don't treat games in the mainstream like art, and for the most part, they are just shooting things and e-peen waving competitions, so why WOULD anyone think that they're art?

Indie games are treated like art, and are art, though. So don't generalize the ENTIRE industry.

EDIT: Whoops, got a bit sidetracked there. We can, though, because that's what movies and music are concerned with too, and we still call them art.

The huge difference is that Beethoven, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Moby Dick are all incredibly well known to people who aren't very into music, film, or literature. These artifacts are part of mainstream culture but they are still art.

A tiny fraction of people who play games being aware about indie art games isn't exactly the same thing.

Mario, hell I just skip it and say almost every thing by nintendo is well know by alot of people. Video games are different and are juged different when it comes to the concept of art. By that I mean they are judged by the culture that surrounds them, how many movies, books, and music have a culture as big as ours that surrounds it(some do I'll admit)? It is up to the gaming community to jugde what game we think is art and isn't. As it up to the metal or indie music culture to decide what is consider art amoungest them, people out side of the culture won't truly understand till we get bigger and better artistic games out and its up to us to support these games and bring them out to the open.

/rant

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

Imagine if all movies couldn't be art. They had to be cheesy action movies with no real storyline, more like "SAVE THE PRINCESS" every single time. Imagine books could only be stupid thriller novels.

THAT'S why we think games need to be treated as a respectable artform. Or at least why I do.

 

[Contextualizer]

Mario, hell I just skip it and say almost every thing by nintendo is well know by alot of people. Video games are different and are juged different when it comes to the concept of art. By that I mean they are judged by the culture that surrounds them, how many movies, books, and music have a culture as big as ours that surrounds it(some do I'll admit)? It is up to the gaming community to jugde what game we think is art and isn't. As it up to the metal or indie music culture to decide what is consider art amoungest them, people out side of the culture won't truly understand till we get bigger and better artistic games out and its up to us to support these games and bring them out to the open.

/rant

You're only proving what I'm saying: Mario is very well known by the mainstream. But no one considers the games he's in to be art as Fur Elise, Mulholland Drive, or Julius Caesar are all considered.

Speak for yourself is the only answer I can really come up with, no offense intended but I truly don't understand how you've been playing games or perhaps I simply haven't grasped your point. I treat games like art, like most art I can't judge what I don't see and I suppose popular games are more likely to catch my attention but that doesn't mean I don't judge them, or that they don't deserve to be considered as such. I even respect many of the good points of games I dislike and play old games people recommend.

No offense taken I don't think you've grasped my point.

Just because you judge games for the good points you have doesn't make games art, no less than you judging fast food restaurants for their good and bad points. It might make games commercial art, but that's a vastly different thing from the fine art that most people want games to be.

 

[LeonLethality]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

You must not enjoy forums very much even though you have over 13,000 posts!

No one cares (at least I hope they don't), but I think it's an interesting discussion point that no one has made so far.

What makes you think I don't enjoy the forums?

And yes people do care, sadly. I guess they like to make a big deal out of nothing. And while it is interesting it usually leads to people at opposing sides of the argument to be at each others throats.

 

[Contextualizer]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

You must not enjoy forums very much even though you have over 13,000 posts!

No one cares (at least I hope they don't), but I think it's an interesting discussion point that no one has made so far.

What makes you think I don't enjoy the forums?

And yes people do care, sadly. I guess they like to make a big deal out of nothing. And while it is interesting it usually leads to people at opposing sides of the argument to be at each others throats.

Coming into discussion threads to crap on them with things like "Who cares?" doesn't sound like something who enjoys discussion would do. Why post in a thread if you have no interest in it?

 

[Zarokima]

Aren't movies and music considered art, when that's pretty much the point of them as well? And what about Jackson Pollock? This [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/No._5,_1948.jpg] was sold for an inflation-adjusted $140 million.

So yeah, your point is irrelevant.

 

[LeonLethality]

Who cares? They're just games, you're supposed to play them and have fun. It doesn't matter if they are art or not.

Imagine if all movies couldn't be art. They had to be cheesy action movies with no real storyline, more like "SAVE THE PRINCESS" every single time. Imagine books could only be stupid thriller novels.

THAT'S why we think games need to be treated as a respectable artform. Or at least why I do.

Remember back in the 16 bit era when games as art crossed nobody's mind and games were really diverse? Notice how today when everyone wants them to be art and they are very samey. Yeah, your argument makes no sense to me, from what I am getting you are saying without them being art they will not be diverse? Care to make what you said a bit more understandable? (Maybe I am just dense for not understanding what you said)

 

[Contextualizer]

So yeah, your point is irrelevant.

Far from it.

Aren't movies and music considered art, when that's pretty much the point of them as well?

You're misunderstanding me. Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus aren't considered art. Transformers 2 and Sex in the City 2 are not considered art.

And what about Jackson Pollock? This [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/No._5,_1948.jpg] was sold for an inflation-adjusted $140 million.

Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. People buy art for lots of money, but that's a very different thing from people saying this piece of art is "better" because it sold for a bit more money than that piece of art.

 

[likalaruku]

Expand your horizons! It's difficult for outsiders to think gamers to understand art (and culture) if they are so ignorant about it. We lose credibility because of it.

Art: Something someone makes that other people enjoy looking at. This can include food.

Anthropologists would disagree with you. Art can be something that people do not enjoy looking at. Art can be horrifying and distasteful.

There's really no connection of enjoyment to what cultures have defined art.

1)I stoped listening to American music 12 years ago.

2)When antrhopologists start making art, they can tell me what art is. Also, the expencive white canvas with a single red dot on it at the airport should not qualify as art. I would even say that 80% of movies are not art. Art is a subjective thing that each individual decides, not a social standard that's voted on.