extra credits: my thoughts

[Fridge]

i really enjoy extra credits, hes a cool guy who always tries to remain unbiased and i respect him. I agree with the controversy topic but i disagree with his underlying theme of 'games as an art'. games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of monets finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

and i think its better off not being an art, in my opinion a game is designed to make you have fun, its not some poncy show peice with narrative and diverity. i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game. The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul, its meant to be driven in the same respect that a game is meant to be played and enjoyed, if you start judging a game on narrative and diverity then youre losing track of what a game is: sheer childish fun.

I have to say I agree with an earlier response to this post. Games may not be considered an art-form now, but there is no need for them to remain that way. Photography and the movie industry started the same way, they were seen as nothing more than entertainment (or in photography's case a way to cheat at painting).
And by the by just because something is functional doesn't mean it isn't art.
Also just because the game is designed so that you have fun doesn't mean you can't learn something from it or about yourself through it.

As for judging a game on its narrative and diversity... do you actually read reviews? Narrative is VITAL to any game. Its what drives the damned plot, games that don't have a narrative generally aren't very good (or are solely multiplayer which is a different kettle of fish). And diversity should always be sought! Its what gives us different ideas for settings and characters and their motivations and needs.

A final piece on that, the 'sheer childish fun' bit. Some games are for that no question there. But others are meant for a older and more mature audience who demand more. Whether that mean it include aspects violence, horror, sexuality or whatever. It becomes an experience rather than just a game.
A good example in films Schindler's List and Clockwork Orange are held up to be considered works of art, they're meant for adults to watch and try to understand the subtext. The Carebares movie and the Transformers movie (the 1980's one) are for the childish thrill. There's room for both.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

sorry shootthebandit but I cannot respect your opinion, for it is biased, prejudiced, and well have you played Shadow of the Collossus? if you can't say that game's artistic then I'll have to start calling you Skynet; for you won't even open your mind to the possibility that games can be art. let me put it this way:

when televised shows were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

When comics/graphic novels were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

when cartoons were invented people said it wasn't art.

it is now (eg. Avatar: The Last Airbender, FMA, Cowboy Bebop)

when movies were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

when video games were invented peaople said it wasn't art.
it will be.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

i really enjoy extra credits, hes a cool guy who always tries to remain unbiased and i respect him. I agree with the controversy topic but i disagree with his underlying theme of 'games as an art'. games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of monets finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

and i think its better off not being an art, in my opinion a game is designed to make you have fun, its not some poncy show peice with narrative and diverity. i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game. The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul, its meant to be driven in the same respect that a game is meant to be played and enjoyed, if you start judging a game on narrative and diverity then youre losing track of what a game is: sheer childish fun.

I have to say I agree with an earlier response to this post. Games may not be considered an art-form now, but there is no need for them to remain that way. Photography and the movie industry started the same way, they were seen as nothing more than entertainment (or in photography's case a way to cheat at painting).
And by the by just because something is functional doesn't mean it isn't art.
Also just because the game is designed so that you have fun doesn't mean you can't learn something from it or about yourself through it.

As for judging a game on its narrative and diversity... do you actually read reviews? Narrative is VITAL to any game. Its what drives the damned plot, games that don't have a narrative generally aren't very good (or are solely multiplayer which is a different kettle of fish). And diversity should always be sought! Its what gives us different ideas for settings and characters and their motivations and needs.

A final piece on that, the 'sheer childish fun' bit. Some games are for that no question there. But others are meant for a older and more mature audience who demand more. Whether that mean it include aspects violence, horror, sexuality or whatever. It becomes an experience rather than just a game.
A good example in films Schindler's List and Clockwork Orange are held up to be considered works of art, they're meant for adults to watch and try to understand the subtext. The Carebares movie and the Transformers movie (the 1980's one) are for the childish thrill. There's room for both.

Hey! you watched Schindler's List? that movie's freaking awsome!

 

[Fridge]

i respect your opinions but i just cant see a game as an art form. art is something passive eg you look at a picture or listen to a song. gaming is not about that its about YOU what YOU do in a game. some of my best moments in gaming have been down to ME not a preset passive cutscene or QTE or set peice. in a way i would say that gaming is much more than art. its engineering

I'm afraid your wrong there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art

That link shows that art can be interactive. Many artists in fact strive to create art where the audience takes part in it.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

ive just had a thought. to consider a game an art then board games and sport must also be art as that is where video games are derived

Then its time to change the name "video games" to something else. Like "interactive experiences"?

look, its a fucking name. it doesn't instantly brand it as childish. Here's my other response:

I too have a thought, are you from FOX? the news show that seems to hate on anything remotely mature?

 

[archvile93]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

edit: sorry for typos and grammar, im in my bed on my PS3. i gotta get some sleep, its been a good discussion

I'd say that's because engineering's primary purpose is to make something functional, not aesthetically pleasing or meant to be enjoyed. For example, and engineer builds an Xbox. His job wasn't to make it pretty, just to make it work. Artists then touch it up and make it presentable. The Xbox also can't move you emotionally like a game can. It can run the game, but it can't be the game.

 

[Fridge]

ive just had a thought. to consider a game an art then board games and sport must also be art as that is where video games are derived

I think its safe to say that no one really knows where video games truly derived from. I'm pretty sure they came into being through a mix of many things. I know that originally the military had something to do with it but I'd have to check my facts.

 

[2xDouble]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

edit: sorry for typos and grammar, im in my bed on my PS3. i gotta get some sleep, its been a good discussion

The Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Sydney Opera House and countless other buildings and projects, are they not art? A finely crafted table, a well-built home, a decorative piece of furniture, are they not art?

Architecture, engineering, and craftsmanship are all art the same way, movies, music, drama, and yes, even video games, are. I defy you to find one architect or engineer who says otherwise of their own volition. (Some may precede defense of their art form with a joke implying that it is not art, it is a "job" or a "pain in" one or more body parts. heh.)

Edit after re-reading the post: Architecture, Drafting and Design are most definitely Fine Arts degrees. Engineering (at least mechanical, electrical, electronic, and biomedical engineering) is included in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

 

[Vrach]

games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of monets finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

*sigh* Do something for me. Sit down. Close your eyes. Imagine a world in which there is no TV, there are no movies. The world where you see a short clip about a train and jump to your side in utmost fear of it jumping out of the wall.

Can you imagine how much of a difference something like that makes for a medium when first encountered? Just as much as interactivity.

Not all games are or even need to be art. There are a few that are. What they greatly benefit from is artistic value as a lot of good things often come with it, like a story better than "we have guns, they have guns, they're obviously evil, let's shoot them with our guns until they don't have guns anymore".

Fact is, not every instance of other mediums are art either. In fact, MOST of them aren't and are merely classified as such after enough time has passed. Like the way we call everything of certain age classical music, which as ridiculous as it seems, by current standards we'll attach to heavy metal, rap, techno and just about everything you can try to fathom as far away from classical music as it can be.

What we're discussing here is not the state of gaming, just it's potential for artistic value. Contrary to whatever most people with penises would tell you, art is not about being poncy, it's (mostly, there's no one definition to rule them all) about drawing out strong emotional response from the person reading/viewing/playing it. If you've never been moved or made to ponder something by a game, well... alright, it's very possible, but there's quite a bit of it if you look around a bit.

Games can (and perhaps should) be divided into several categories... there are some that are mostly for mindless fun, there are some for competitive gameplay (as someone said, closer to a sport than art) and there are those that are about a story, setting, atmosphere, idea etc. The third type is well fit to classify as an art form and hell, considering what passes for art in the other mediums, some of the games from the first category could fit in as well with some underlying message, despite it's initial inane appearance (but now, that is being poncy imo ).

The point is, it's a medium. Like every other medium, it is mostly focused on entertainment and most people will view it as such - how many people do you know who watch movies or read books and then go around discussing their artistic value? They can talk about the story though, but the same happens with video games, look at how many threads we get around here with people discussing the narrative/setting of the games. Games are just as capable as movies at delivering certain stories/periods/situations to life and even more so in most circumstances exactly because of their interactivity. Granted, movies are a lot further ahead at the moment, but they've had a good headstart - the video game industry is still young in comparison.

 

[Fridge]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

I'm pretty sure a degree in engineering is not a degree in art. Now, again art is very subjective, but engineering something can easily be art. You might not consider something like a bridge art, but I'm sure the guy who designed it sure things it is.

obviously an art degree isnt an engineering degree but some degrees (that are not "art") are called bachelors of arts

Ah I think your getting your definitions crossed there. Your refering to this definition;

Art - a skill at doing a specified thing , typically one acquired through practice: the art of conversation

Where as the art debate were having are currently defined by the Oxford dictionary like this:

Art - 1: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

2: works produced by human creative skill and imagination

 

[Pegghead]

Well really V8 supercars are a kind of car and I've seen plenty of cars that are works of art in of themselves in areas from the smoothness of the design and drive to the cleverness of its paint-job. Games can be art and many are, games can be un-artistic fun and many are. Games can be artistic and fun as many are, therefore it's an art-form.

Personally I'd hold up LIMBO as an example of games being art. This is mostly because, like a fine car, the elements unique to the car are what give it the artistic edge, here the gameplay and takes on long-held gaming standards are what give it that artistic edge, the fact that at some points you're forced to do some quite bone-chilling things in order to stay alive (i.e using the corpses of children to set off traps), the fact that death screens stay on-screen and zooming in for just that much too long that emphasise the fact that thanks to you this boy has now died alone and forgotten in a looming, horrifying world.

If there's one thing that gets to me it's the statement "Video-games are toys", don't get me wrong I'm not one of these types who go around claiming that we should call games "interactive story-telling experiences" but it's just such a limiting, generalising and simplifying statement for the entire medium. What "toys" have given us something equivalent to the well-developed characters, narratives, universes and experiences that gaming has in recent years?

 

[Atmos Duality]

i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game.

How? There is absolutely no logic to this claim.

The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul

The value of the vehicle to its owner suddenly vanishes when he appreciates it as something more than a machine that can go from point A to point B?
What about the art of driving it? Every vehicle model feels and handles differently. Does that sort of distinction ruin the soul of the vehicle?

I concede that without gameplay it really isn't much of a game, but the difference is in the experience game can provide.

Games should be what their creators intend them to be and if said creator wants to make an artistic statement with one, then power to them.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

So that movie you are enjoying, that book you can't put down, and that music that's stuck in your head isn't art because it's fun? Yeah I don't think so. You missed the entire point of the video. Sure games can be just fun, but not all of them have to be mindless games

 

[Fanta Grape]

Then you missed the entire point of the video.

Games can be sheer childish fun. But they don't need to be.

My favourite link to a game that can be art is this. [http://tinycartridge.com/post/866743831/super-creepy-pokemon-hack] And even if one game is art, then we can classify the whole genre in the same way.

That story, whether true or not, has completely changed my perception of video games... My God...

 

[boholikeu]

Floyd believes that all games should aspire to high art, and is ignorant to the fact that it takes decades or even centuries for anything artistic to be recognized as "high art". There are hundreds of thousands of games that have been published over the last 35 years. But the ones that could potentially qualify as high art can be counted on one hand.

Art is subjective, it does not have to be high art to be art. I don't understand why Floyd is trying to rush the medium in a questionable direction, and that is why I dislike his show.

To be fair, he doesn't say that every game needs to be artistic. He only says that he wishes more games were/that the industry would take more chances with artistic games. There is a difference.

ive just realised this arguement has too many factors. your definition of art, your definition of a game and what you want from a game

Tell me what your definition of art is, and I'll explain how video games can fit into it. I have yet to see a definition of art that can't include video games.

 

[Whoatemysupper]

Then you missed the entire point of the video.

Games can be sheer childish fun. But they don't need to be.

My favourite link to a game that can be art is this. [http://tinycartridge.com/post/866743831/super-creepy-pokemon-hack] And even if one game is art, then we can classify the whole genre in the same way.

Now I'm sad. And that had some really random-ish comments.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Play Heavy Rain, then come back and say games aren't art.

Agreed, if there could only be one game they could show at the supreme court case to show games are an art form this would be it.

If you took Heavy Rain before Supreme Court, they'd ignore the story and focus on how it objectifies women and allows gamers to get their character raped with a drill.

You can't argue with a person who has made up their mind. It is sad but true.

 

[worldruler8]

The way I see it, Gaming is not an art the same way an instrument in an orchrestra is not an art. Rather, it is a key building block. A blank canvas, if you will. The game is not the art, only the experiences we derive from them. We are the artists in the games, not the people who make them. (They are artists, but for the sake of this scenario, they aren't the one playing the game.) That said, I think games should be considered an art, although it is a bit more complicated then that.

 

[binvjoh]

Everything can be considered art.

Games are not an exception.