Games are doomed never to become an art form.

[olicon]

I think games will never become synonymous with art. Not because it lacks the quality to become one, but because it is too perfect of a medium to become one.
As we all know, the greatest arts mimic life, and they raise issues pertaining to life and reality. Even the most abstract art still sends a message about life. And those arts, and literature that speaks volume about life are the ones that are celebrated. Not so much for games though.

The more realistic a game become, the more mature (not in increasing nudity or violence, but addressing a mature theme in artful manner) it gets, the more audience it captures, the more creative and deviates from society's norm it becomes, the more it is condemned. Exhibit 52 billion--GTA, HALO, Gears of War, God of War, Destroy All Humans, Fat Princess, Flight Simulator, Starcraft, even frikkin' Wii Fit are all considered murder simulators, purveyor of bad self-confidence, self-esteem wrecker, and terrorist training tools. The better a game becomes, the stronger message it brings home, and the more people react to them.

How do you win when you are condemned for finally getting the correct formula to recreate the world we live in? How do you win when presenting a creative application for a game console means you are stepping on the weight-sensitive and feminists? And all because it is "more interactive than a TV or a book", making it a perfect tool to become bad influence. So video game's strongest point over other medium is now it's greatest enemy--how ironic.

Therefore I submit, the more video games are improved, the more criticism it will draw. Unless of course we gamers are smart enough, and learn to pin the blame on someone else. So guys, go out to your nearest elementary school and start a trend--any trend--and watch as politicians and parents flock to aid their children from the latest, most dangerous threat to mankind.

 

[Milkatron]

I liked it all better in the 8 and 16-bit era, where games were about timing a jump and if there were guns, it would be getting to the other end of a long 2-D jungle. With all the sameyness of games now, it seems now a game's popularity is determined by how much it is condemned by parents and government.

Old school gaming forever.

 

[TheKbob]

I liked it all better in the 8 and 16-bit era, where games were about timing a jump and if there were guns, it would be getting to the other end of a long 2-D jungle. With all the sameyness of games now, it seems now a game's popularity is determined by how much it is condemned by parents and government.

Old school gaming forever.

Where as I would be one to argue for the immersion of amazing graphics and presentations, physics adding more realism to the worlds, first person perspective making you the character, and much richer story telling than ever before.

Old school gaming is old school because it's the solid foundation that is the past. The times will always change.

Movies, Rock n Roll, TV... these all had their demon days of being the main evil. The day of the Game excepted as art by those outside the true hardcore will come, don't worry. Look at Braid. Great game play and can be seen as an amazing piece of art in how the gameplay elements intertwine and create parts of the story.

 

[Goenitz]

Therefore I submit, the more video games are improved, the more criticism it will draw. Unless of course we gamers are smart enough, and learn to pin the blame on someone else. So guys, go out to your nearest elementary school and start a trend--any trend--and watch as politicians and parents flock to aid their children from the latest, most dangerous threat to mankind.

I don't nessessarily think that the reason video games are drawing so much attention is because they are improving. Rather is the the fact that they are becoming more and more main-stream, and widely accepted as a legitimate form of entertainment. I do, however agree with your statement that most games can be considered "murder simulators," just recall any FPS you've ever played. I think that the percent of the population that blame the media/entertainment for their problems hasn't changed that much. They are just a bunch of finger-pointers looking for something defenseless to shovel their issues onto. Rememeber when Elvis shaking his hips on stage was considered "demonic"??? I laughed my ass off when I heard my mom talk about that shit.

And besides, that cat can dance.

 

[scarbunny]

The main reason games will never be "art" is that a piece of art is defined as something created with no other purpose than to be art (or some bollocks cant quite remmeber the exact quote) and games are created to entertain as their reson detra, or in theory it is although some devs need to be told this again me thinks)

So while games can be artistic, or have artistic value they can never be art in themselves

 

[zirnitra]

pfft, all new mediums of art are greatly controversial and unappreciated to begin with.
I look at it this way drawing similar lines between painting and gaming. we're way past the enicial primative cave drawings (pong, space invaders Pacman etc etc) we're now in sort of a 16th century period of art where all their was were highly accurate portrait paintings, which are now considered dull and not truly art (think GT5 with almost picture like graphics) and soon we will enter an impressionist period of gaming where we sort of throw the realism out of the window in order to improve the gaming experiences and aesthetics which has already been done a bit (think kill27) which was praised for it's cartoony style of graphics but also greatly criticised for it.

 

[TheKbob]

The main reason games will never be "art" is that a piece of art is defined as something created with no other purpose than to be art (or some bollocks cant quite remmeber the exact quote) and games are created to entertain as their reson detra, or in theory it is although some devs need to be told this again me thinks)

So while games can be artistic, or have artistic value they can never be art in themselves

That's a fair assessment. What about Art based on Video Games? That's probably a completely different idea...

I find games like Braid and Okami very artistic and have amazing style, but are they art? Hard to tell. There are forms of art that is manipulated by the user, as well. A simple example would be a kaleidiscope.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

Does a kaleidoscope count as art? Surely not seeing its comparable torandomly dropping coloured beads on the floor, then moving them about when you feel the need.

If art is subjective then its up to the person experiencing the product to decide if it is art or not?

Oh, and scarbunny, there are many different interpretations on what defines art. Many pieces of art were not made soley for the pleasure of their artistic existence. Most would have been created for income or other reasons (Tolkien writing The Hobbit for his son as an example).

 

[Spinozaad]

I don't want art. I want entertainment.

Besides, what's art and what not is usually decided by failed and bittered critics/artists.

 

[Seldon2639]

I would actually argue that videogames can be art, but the times they're made as art, we revile them. Look at Metal Gear Solid 2. Instead of immersing the player fully, the game used its formative elements (the interaction between the player, character, and world) in a way no other medium could in order to make a point that went way over most of our heads (mine included at the time).

The issue is less that video games are too close to resembling real life, and more that any game attempting to really be art is almost automatically dismissed. This is mainly because videogames as art cannot be based on how good it looks (Okami included art, but the game itself was not art), or even on whether it tells a good story (most books would not be considered a work of art). The art of a game must not be because of the content, but how it is formed.

Think of it this way: if I draw a picture of the Mona Lisa, even though the content is art (by definition), my creation of it isn't. A video game as art will require not only the ability to craft such a work, but to ensure that it is well understood, and that's the biggest issue. Look at Yahtzee's reviews, if you go no further, and you'll see that most of the games which put the art and story at the forefront, rather than the pure entertainment of the game, are immediately derided.

When someone goes to the Louvre, he's expecting to see art, and thus accepts that even if the Picasso painting doesn't make one lick of sense, that it's art, and has meaning. We pursue videogames mainly (if not solely) as a means of entertainment, and thus are unable to distinguish between an attempt at art, and a silly game (again, I must reference MGS2 as the prime example). Games are only going to be art when we accept that they can be art, and that in the same way some pictures you like because they're pretty and nice to look at, and some you like because they're rich with meaning and artistic merit, we can allow for that kind of dichotomy in games.

 

[wgreer25]

A very well thought out argument and I agree with you assessment that games are tagged as "murder simulators" that don't know where to place the real blame.

However, in reference to Games never being art, I think you are making one huge mistake. You are lumping all games together. To use movies as an analogy, you can't lump them all together. Some movies can be considered artful, and many others not. For example, if you want to say movies are art (and I think they can be) then you might use something like Citizen Kane or Shawshank Redemption, but you would not use something like Mummy 3. They are not in the same class or genre. So games are the same way. I would consider the games you listed as the popular action titles, but not necessarily to be considered art. If I were to fight for the games as art theory, I would use something like Okami, or Shadow of Colossus. Or to compare both media to painted art, they can all be considered art, but some are better than others. It is a matter of taste. I would say the two games I listed are some of the most artful because of story, gameplay, atmosphere and unique style. But you may look at it with an eye for graphical perfection and realism, in which case Crysis or COD4 may be first in your book. The nay-sayers who either don't like games or condemn them, would actually be anagous to myself when I see some forms of modern art.
Like this...
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/ryb.jpg
This is not art, this is lines and a little color. A 5 year old could do it. But since I am not an educated art critic, this could be the masterpiece of the century. It is a matter of taste. If someone doesn't want to see games as art, it will never be an art for them. For someone who does want to see games as art, they will see it as such, and probably appreciate it more.
I believe that as games become more mainstream, you indie titles will become more popular with the casual gamer (the 40+ Wii owners). Heck, I got into gaming because of my dad. He was the one who bought our first Atari 6400 (for him as much for me and my sis). Just like many my age. Then my generation became gamers and it is now popular with the college and younger crowd. The Wii has brough back the older genreation and IMHO has been the biggest influence in making games more mainstream. I think the overall public opinion of games will begin to get more possitive because of the older generation and the Wii.
So your argument has merrit, but I believe that the more mainstream games become, the hippies with their Wii's will stand up for freedom of speech and stand against censorship.

Just my opinion.

 

[Goenitz]

I don't want art. I want entertainment.

Besides, what's art and what not is usually decided by failed and bittered critics/artists.

Or as Yahtzee calls them, "Bearded tossers that read too much into things for a living"

 

[rottenbutter]

Just because some games are tastles or nothing close to art, doesn't mean that there can't be artistic games.

Its the same with movies.

 

[shufflemonkey16]

Arguing whether video games, or any other media or presentation or object, is art or not is pretty pointless. Art is what you want it to be and anything you want to be art is art. I could dip a mop into several different colors of paint and indiscriminately slap it across a canvas and call that my art. You can say that it's not art all you want, but as long as I or anyone else thinks it is, you can't really argue. It's the pinnacle of subjective thought.

I say that video games are art, even my Civics teacher says that they're art. So they're art, and for anyone to argue against that with me is pointless.

 

[dukeh016]

I say that video games are art, even my Civics teacher says that they're art. So they're art, and for anyone to argue against that with me is pointless.

I'm quite happy to be a series of rounded nubs rather than points. Thank you very much.

Perhaps to call something "Art" or "Not Art" is a bit foolish. Under your definition, everthing would be art. Hence it would lose its meaning as "art," as it is indistinguishable from anything "unart." Perhaps art is no more than the perspective from which we view something. Of course, then we are left judging good art from bad art, so perhaps it would be better for the original OP to say that video games will never be good art? Just a thought.

 

[Iconf10]

Really, I think the main thing holding back games as an art form is simply the complexity of design and overall nature of developers to go after a target audience, gamers. If a company wanted to make a game that would fall into the category of art, they would need a game that is simple to pick up and play like mario and pacman, yet beautifully made. Okami was a good shot toward art, but they controls were a bit much for the "artist" crowd to enjoy the game. As well most games the programmers take center stage with all the talk of how they made this lighting effect and this shader. And to the average art enthusiast, thats the computer doing the work, so its not art. But overall, games are simply a miss understood art form and if the snobs that deem what is art could stop drowning every time it rained they would realize the creative value in a well made game.

But I think the gaming culture has given up on artist expression for corporate run mass produced titles that are quick and easy with very few risks. Its not like back in the days of mario and atari where programmers just threw things up on the wall and saw what stuck, now its all predetermined what sells to what audience and the corporate America keeps it that way.

 

[scarbunny]

Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Portal...

You're telling me that these games are not art?

No their not art, they are artistic, well apart from Portal in my eyes it isnt particularly artistic its just fun.

But as has been said if you want art go to a gallery if you want fun then there are games

 

[The Other Steve]

I vehemently disagree with that definition of art.

Saying art must exist merely for the sake of being art is silly. Everything requires a degree of functionality, that must be balanced with the more artistic elements of expression and openness to interpretation.

Let's start with a basic, indisputable level of art. A picture. Pictures can be art. If you disagree, then my argument is lost to you.

Let's up that one level, and make it video. Can video be art? Movies? I should think so, being simply a collection of pictures. Admittedly, we're moving away from the "fine arts" to a more general term at this point.

Up another level to an interactive video. A video game. Can that be art? Well, the difference there is the interactivity. But I believe that adding interactivity takes the medium a step closer to art, again. Art is about creating something that elicits a response from the viewer. It's a form of communication, really. And all art, therefore, is interactive. When you look at a painting, you're interacting with it. You notice some things before others, you focus in particular areas specific to yourself. All the artist can do is create something to interact with.

What it boils down to is that art is not in the hands of the artist, but the eyes of the viewer. Some people are deeply moved by many Renaissance paintings; personally the bulk of them haven't provided any insight to my life. Perhaps it's my untrained eye and uncultured mind, but they are lost to me. When I played Braid, I learned something; not that the game taught me, but that I taught myself by playing it. That, I think, is art.

 

[olicon]

Wow..that's more responses than I could ever imagine. Sorry for the slow response, but I have pretty limited access to the net.

Anyway, I tend to agree with people who say anything can be artistic. I myself believe that everything IS art, and we can find artistic value in everything. I also feel that we have sufficient tools and ability to make games that are greatly entertaining, to the point where it is artistic i.e. Portal and MGS. However, the more entertaining (and generally, the better) a game gets, the more it will inevitably bring home inconvenient truth. I believe that MGS's excellent political analysis (yeah, I'd go that far) and psychoanalysis, Bioshock's tackling philosophy of choice and politics, and Portal's willingness to break new grounds and blurring boundaries has made many critics somewhat uncomfortable. Sure, these games never quite escape the circle of the most devoted of gamers, but that is the effect, not the cause. The content of the game itself can freak out and alienate newcomers precisely because it eventually deals with really difficult topics.
And that is precisely why I think games are different from other popular medium. As Rock&Roll and movies gain popularity, they are more often than not dumbed down. The masterpieces are usually not played in mainstream theater, and outright banned in many countries. Games too, face this kind of treatment. Except that it takes a lot more commitment (especially financially) to start yourself as a gamer, and only the best franchises are able to thrive. But since good/artistic master pieces are generally shunned by the public, good games will always be blamed for bad things. (And fortunately/unfortunately, we gamers shunned crappy games..so what does that leave?)