Devils Advocate: The "Games as Art" Debate is a Disservice to Art and Games

[Asparagus Brown]

*DISCLAIMER* The idea I am about to posit could be considered quite inflammatory. I do not wish to troll in any way, simply to provoke intelligent discussion about art and games in relation to it. Agreement is not at all required for this discussion, but logical argument is.

Here it is: By fighting viciously for games as a medium to be recognised as "Art", it assumes that simply by virtue of being part of that medium, any game is art. By extension, this means that all paintings, sculptures, pieces of music and films are also art. This is false. Art is autonomous to any medium. By holding stubbornly onto this stance, it devalues true art, and any games that already fall into this true art category or will in the future.

In conducting this discussion, it should be noted that there is an important difference between "being art" and "being artistic" and that any argument that claims "everything [that expresses, is symbolic, has had work put into, etc.] is art" falls into the nihilistic stance above that devalues true art.

Discuss!

 

[Realitycrash]

By extension, this means that all paintings, sculptures, pieces of music and films are also art. This is false. Art is autonomous to any medium. By holding stubbornly onto this stance, it devalues true art,

All paintings, sculptures, music and films ARE art, in its own way. There is no "true art" (and I dare you to link a piece of "true art" and manage to defend that it is "truer" than any other art. Goodluck, now please go ahead), and every game is art.

Some art is alot less imaginative, creative or stimulating than others, though. That's why not every artist gets worldwide fame.

 

[tigermilk]

I've never heard it argued all games are art but merely some games are art. Sotc and Ico have often both been cited as art or artistically valid, I have not heard the same argument put forward for MW2 or Soldier of Fortune.

We are at a facinating point in the history of art and culture. The rise of film studies from the 50's onwards, the deconstruction of the literary canon and challenges to the high/low cultural dichotomoy and notions of authorship in the late 60's and the development of cultural studies in the 70's are all complicit in creating a space where this discussion can exist.

I personally feel games can be art (I consider GTA IV can be cited as art) but just like all paintings, sculpture, films etc I wouldn't consider them art, but I would struggle to think of a creative/created cultural edifice that I would not acknowledge someones right to cite as or consider art.

 

[GiantRaven]

This is false. Art is autonomous to any medium. By holding stubbornly onto this stance, it devalues true art, and any games that already fall into this true art category or will in the future.

Except that ideas of 'true art' can be seen as matters of opinion (as well as sounding incredibly arrogant and pretentious). Why discard certain items as being classed as 'art' when others may think differently? By classifying all aspects of a given medium as 'art', you merely get situations of what people consider to be 'good art' and 'bad art'. I find this preferable to situations where people tell me what I consider 'good art' doesn't count because they don't like it (or see it's value or whatever).

 

[Jamous]

I agree to an extent, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Most people don't claim that all games should be considered art. Just that some, very specific titles are deserving of that consideration. Just as SOME paintings are considered art by the majority, and SOME sculptures are as well. And given that all art is completely objective, I don't believe that's an unreasonable stance to take.

Do you mean Subjective? It just seems like that's what you meant.
ANYWAY. OT: Yeah, that sounds about right. You probably wouldn't compare Shadow of the Colossus to, say, ET. Also some games just aren't and can't be called art. Just no.
So sounds like you're on the right track to me. Most people do mean, when they same Games Are Art, that Games can be seen as a legitimate artform, just like painting, or film, or whatever medium you choose. Not that all games are, literally, art. Although I'm sure there are some who -do- mean it that way.

 

[LHZA]

There is a difference between artform and art. Mediums (film, literature, video games) are the artform, in which the pieces of art exist. Not all which exists in the artform will be art, but has the potential to be so. Recognition of video games as art, is really recognition of video games as an artform, meaning every video game has the potential to be art. Basically this is something of a reversal of your arguement. You argue video games ( and all mediums) cannot be said to be art because not all video games, movies, books are all that great. I would argue that if a medium contains pieces of work that can be said to be true pieces of art, then said medium is an artform, and there for culturally relevant, important for human development as a whole, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

 

[RA92]

OP

I tend to categorize games under the banner of 'kitsch art'. I know its somewhat a derogatory term, but my feelings tend to be the opposite. 'High art' is mostly pretentious and requires the interpretative power of the audience. They can't stand on their own accord.

 

[Vault101]

ok here somthing

If films are art then why can Transformers:revenge of the falled be art

but Bioshock cant?

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

I don't think anyone would cite COD or something along those lines in a games as art debate, and if it were brought up one could argue that it's an example of art made purely for profit. It all depends on what you define as art. I would call any artwork "art", and just classify it all as either "good art" or "bad art" (eg. To Kill a Mockingbird is good art, Twilight is bad art). Someone else might clarify it differently, it doesn't matter. The fact is that video games have proven to be capable of being good art, therefore video games deserve the title of art.

 

[Ranorak]

I think we need to find out exactly what is considered Art, and what not.
A clear definition would help.

People say movies are art. Which I agree with when I'm shown a good art-sy movie. But I have to disagree with that statement if shown Die Hard. Die hard was a amusing way to entertain myself, but I don't consider it art.

Statues are considered art. I agree when shown David, but when I look at the bear I had to make during arts and crafts class, I can see that not ALL statues are art.

Games can be art. Not when looking at games like Splatterhouse, Mario Party 8 or Mortal Kombat (why is that with a K anyway?) But games like ICO, Mass Effect, Assassins Creed and even The Wind Waker.

But why do I label one as art, and the other as not.

I don't know.
I have no freaking clue why I see one movie as art, and then other not.
And I know very well that if I can't reference one from the other, other people can't either. And thus would use different measures of Art.

Everyone's idea of what is art and what not is different, ergo people will not judge the same thing as art.
That's why I think we need a clear definition of Art first.

 

[Bobbity]

I've never bought into this films as art, games as art and even art as art thing. Anything can be art, but to fight for recognition for an entire medium is to demean the both of them. Sure as hell Ico is art, but why should that say anything about Kane and Lynch?

Literature can be art, art can be art, but only if it's meaningful in some way; beautiful or capable of stirring emotion. To define an entire medium, be it paintings, photography, poetry or so on, as art demeans the works that are are, the genre as a whole, and is inappropriate categorizing of those works which should not be considered art.

Well, that's assuming that your definition of art is the same as mine, after all. It's a personal thing.

 

[Srrrh]

To say that what is "art" is subjective is entirely false.

The first definition of art to pop up on Google is thus:

the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

I completely disagree that some sculptures are not art, that some paintings are not art, that some films are not art, that some fiction books are not art. Some things might not be great examples of their particular artform, but they are a "product of human creativity" none-the-less. The stick people I doodle in the margins of my paper is art, just not at all very good.

So, what is and isn't art is not subjective at all. The subjective bit is what we consider as good art. I can't stand Picasso's work, but I wouldn't dare go as far as to say his paintings weren't art.

Assuming that video games, is considered an artform: if I asked my younger brother what games he considered good art, he would probably mention Call of Duty because he thinks the graphics are very good. I would vehemently disagree, but I would probably agree that Assassins Creed II is art, as would our mother, as we enjoy watching him play through the streets of Renaissance Florence. However, yet others would probably disagree for a variety of reasons - perhaps it is too mainstream, too big and flashy, whatever.

To put it concisely - if Damian Hurst is considered an artist, and videogames become considered an artform, then Pacman should be considered art.

 

[Darth IB]

And who are you to decide what is "true art" and what is not? What makes your definition right, and mine wrong?
I say all books, all music, all films, all paintings and all games are art.
Obviously there are some pieces of art I find superior to others, but it is more than likely that someone else has the exact opposite opinion.

 

[Manji187]

Let's not forget that there is such a thing as quality which is not entirely subjective (there are things pretty much everybody considers shit...like the movie Battlefield Earth). Suffice it to say that while we may not know what art is precisely, we sure as hell know what it is not.

And in art, there is also kitsch....one doesn't need to be a snob to understand that there are things that try to be art and fail miserably. You know it when you see it.

What any artistic medium has in common is that there is always more shit than diamonds. Both the shit and the diamonds have gradations.

 

[Popido]

Welcome to Escapist.

 

[badgersprite]

To say that what is "art" is subjective is entirely false.

The first definition of art to pop up on Google is thus:

the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

I completely disagree that some sculptures are not art, that some paintings are not art, that some films are not art, that some fiction books are not art. Some things might not be great examples of their particular artform, but they are a "product of human creativity" none-the-less. The stick people I doodle in the margins of my paper is art, just not at all very good.

So, what is and isn't art is not subjective at all. The subjective bit is what we consider as good art. I can't stand Picasso's work, but I wouldn't dare go as far as to say his paintings weren't art.

Assuming that video games, is considered an artform: if I asked my younger brother what games he considered good art, he would probably mention Call of Duty because he thinks the graphics are very good. I would vehemently disagree, but I would probably agree that Assassins Creed II is art, as would our mother, as we enjoy watching him play through the streets of Renaissance Florence. However, yet others would probably disagree for a variety of reasons - perhaps it is too mainstream, too big and flashy, whatever.

To put it concisely - if Damian Hurst is considered an artist, and videogames become considered an artform, then Pacman should be considered art.

You said everything that I was going to say better than I was going to say it.

Yes. Everything is art. We take 'art' too seriously, and that leads to the kind of bullshit and snobbery that results in people only viewing incomprehensible messes which communicate nothing at all as art and makes people view the general public as too dumb to consume anything but the worst most and patronising forms of entertainment - why should they have to try to produce anything good when it's not considered art by default?

The answer is that yes; all games are art, all films are art, all paintings and literature and poetry produced is art. Being bad art doesn't disqualify something from being art. That's like saying all music I dislike isn't music. It's elitist bullshit and it does a disservice to everyone to patronise common people by saying their tastes are fundamentally at odds with anything with artistic value and only to select some rare, obscure piece of crap liked by academics as being art over everything else.

I'm sorry, but if I live in a world where pretentious arthouse garbage like a urinal is considered a work of art worth three million dollars (true story, look it up) but Psychonauts is not, then fuck this reality; I'm out of here.

 

[Tsaba]

You said everything that I was going to say better than I was going to say it.

Yes. Everything is art. We take 'art' too seriously, and that leads to the kind of bullshit and snobbery that results in people only viewing incomprehensible messes which communicate nothing at all as art and makes people view the general public as too dumb to consume anything but the worst most and patronising forms of entertainment - why should they have to try to produce anything good when it's not considered art by default?

The answer is that yes; all games are art, all films are art, all paintings and literature and poetry produced is art. Being bad art doesn't disqualify something from being art. That's like saying all music I dislike isn't music. It's elitist bullshit and it does a disservice to everyone to patronise common people by saying their tastes are fundamentally at odds with anything with artistic value and only to select some rare, obscure piece of crap liked by academics as being art over everything else.

I'm sorry, but if I live in a world where pretentious arthouse garbage like a urinal is considered a work of art worth three million dollars (true story, look it up) but Psychonauts is not, then fuck this reality; I'm out of here.

It's called "Fountain" btw.

I'm in total agreement, all games are art and we as a community need to take this stance.

 

[Blunderman]

All of this completely side-stepping the fact that what you do and do not call "art" is an irrelevant issue. If Deus Ex was to be officially declared the worst insult to interactive medium ever, I would still play it and it'd be no less awesome to me.

All it takes for anything to be art is for one single person to think that it is. No one has the ability to veto it, ever. Art is in the eye of the beholder and the disservice is thinking any of this matters at all.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Define art.

Give me a Universal definition of art before this discsussion boils down to different interpetations of it.

And dont throw me this bull shit about all Art being completly subjective.To be subjection there must be a difinition.

The word art is thrown around so much that it has lost any meaning it had since it was first started being used.

If you cannot come up with a complete universal definition and still say that art is subjective than art doesnt exist and its just that funny feeling you get when you have too much time around your hand.

Describe the object/entity/abstraction and tell me what it is before you start trying to judge what is or isnt art.