Games are doomed never to become an art form.

[scarbunny]

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.

Im not sure what purpose a picture serves other than being a picture, so at that point you kind of lost me.

Also art should be able to elicit a responce from the viewer by just being personally I have never found any art that has been particularly interesting.

However I think you have missed my point slightly, and it is most likely I did not articulate it properly. My point is that movies, games and music will never be "art" in the purest sence they can have artistic properties and artistic merits.

In fact the majority of games, movies and music is so much beyond art. The whole games as art discussion is flawed at the most basic of levels, as games are so much more than art, they incoperate all of the different fields of art and then takes them beyond the sum of the parts.

So really games shouldnt be deffined as art as they are so much more, it is like calling Hugh Hefner a pornographer, when he was so much more a civil rights campainger, philanthrapist, and so mcuh more. Its using old ideas to limit how tings are percived, trying to tie something inpercivable down to a name, a word or a genre.

Art is some guy leaving a dog in a room to starve to death, or half a sheep, or an unmade bed, is that what games should be compaired to?

I didnt actually express myself at all in my first post and I apolgise for the miss understanding.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

Games are already art, something lovingly worked over with a computer and mouse is not very different to something made with a hammer and chisel. and i can't remember who said this above you said the entertainment aspect of games is holding it back from being art, so if games become unentertaining don't we lose what was worth admiring in the first place?

Games are art but only in the same way graffiti is, something considered beautiful and full of intricate meaning (actual Graffiti not Dave wuz here) but only by some, everyone would call the Mona Lisa art but again some would call Okami art, it's all about opinion and personal definition.

The way i look at it to sum up is art is either a pretty picture or something that evokes an emotional response, and most games can manage either of these, by a certain method of thinking becoming art.

Oh and to the O.P. isn't art meant to be responded to, either with love or hate, didn't people respond to most art at some point with revulsion?

This my opinion at somewhere around midnight so feel free to call me an idiot.

 

[Crossmine]

Im gonna go ahead and quote ZP on this one "were getting to the point where graphics wont get too much better so maybe we'll start having games with some DEPTH" but since there will always be some annoying person like jack thompson or some fashist that will try to censor games even though as they stand they are artwork.

 

[captainpuglet]

IMO for something to be art it has to have no physical or usable purpose. Art is an expression, personal emotions, not a commercial product. The idea of video games being art or wanting video games to be art is barbaric, what ever happened to the game? You know, the bit where you play and have fun. Game developers should spend more time developing good game-play rather than making them all arty-farty.

 

[ladyparvati]

hold it ! objection !

you know what , i don't like fine art stuff after all . there are many cheap and rubbish faking works and artforms submitted as fine art like visual arts , music , sculpture , painting ...

like hell , everyone don't like surrealism and you or me don't have to love any meaningless artform spamming stupidity .

what about statues showing penis or vagina ? can you call them as artforms ? yeah , sure ! under hedonism or nihilism .

- video games are intertwined with life by their a lot of exclusive artistic aspects .
- there are video games as artform like Gran Turismo series , Xenosaga series ...
- there are video games just for fun like Burnout series , Mario series ...

i claim against you and i believe that video game is above and beyond artform term .

 

[Zukhramm]

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

But does games allways need to be entertaining? We will allways need entertaining games, but not all games should be required to be entertaining, just as not all movies and not all books are here to entertain.

 

[brabz]

I'm always surprised when a person tries to cite increased image quality and graphics as a reason games will ruin any chance of being considered an art form.

Photography is a well-respected art medium, and I don't hear anyone chastizing photographers who take advantage of improved technology to creat a more vivid photograph.

If a game gets to the point where it looks exactly the same as real life, isn't it just a film-quality piece of work that you interact with? You would still have to play it through a screen and use a controller or some form of participation not yet conjoured up to interact with the game.

And just like the film industry, games have different purposes(action, comedy, drama, etc.) and each genre can be appreciated and taken as an art form in their own way.

To those who say art is not for commercial purposes, how do you explain a writer who has a personal vision come to life and get picked up because it touches so many people? A filmaker who changes the way people think through their expression? Every person can create their own art; and some are talented or relatable enough to achieve financial success because people appreciate its merit.

In my opinion, games are already a form of art, just not one that has been fully utilized or understood.

 

[NinjaDwarf]

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.

? Surely if every game was about timing jumps and going to the end of a 2-D jungle again then it'd be even more 'samey'. There's a lot larger variety of games today than there was back in old-school days.

And I think games can become an art form, but that is what the 'hardcore' games will have to become to overcome the casual market.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

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

Film is currently considered "art" as is most music, as are comic book etc. All of these serve the purpose of Entertainment as well as providing an Artistic flavor to them, hence I think if film can be an art form, so can videogames.

 

[curlycrouton]

Gaming is an art form, albeit a shallower one than most. When has someone expressed their feelings through the medium of a game? never. If someone can find me one I'd be quite happy to see it. But still it wouldn't come nearly as close as Images, music or dance and other art forms.

 

[Jumplion]

Technically Virtua Fighter could be considered art because it's displayed at the Smithsonian. Well, it is!

I personally think the only way a Video Game can be classified as "art" would be if it showed something new or told it in a new way or something that I'm pretty sure I'm not describing well.

For example, Shadow of the Collosus. It told the story with barely a narative, it gave you the feeling of isolation and lonliness, it showed you how one man would do anything for his love, it made you feel like you were part of something bigger and epic.

If that couldn't be considered art, I don't know what could be. But that's my humble opinion on the subject.

 

[Monkeybone]

Games will never be 'art' because 'art' is boring and static, games are dynamic. Remember Killer 7? Some were all like 'oooh'... And got distracted by the 'art', I just saw shitty cell shading and some pretty boring and non-functional (not that they didn't work, but they were awkward and unintuitive) game mechanics.

I personally hate contemporary art and music, it's just noise and weird non-euclidean scribbles. Sometimes innovation and new things are good, but really they're just essentially mutations. Some are beneficiary and some are just tumors... Go play Burger Time and tell me if it's good, I dare you, I double dare you.

 

[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

But does games allways need to be entertaining? We will allways need entertaining games, but not all games should be required to be entertaining, just as not all movies and not all books are here to entertain.

Yes games have to entertain otherwise they aren’t games, they are work, or edutainment (and even edutainment is at least slightly entertaining)

Bad movies aren’t entertaining, badly written books or books that are for education aren’t entertaining.

Entertainment is pretty much a prerequisite of something being a game.

 

[Fangface74]

As we all know, the greatest arts mimic life

Do we? Coming from an background in art I have to point out this slightly sweeping statement simply isn't true, you've touched on the subject well enough but the debate over what art even is hasn't been decided (most, quite rightly think it shouldn't EVER be!) let alone included video games in it's ranks.

Rather than mimicking life, art is an interpretation at best. Challenging preconceived notions is a staple tenet of the Arts, and with gaming still in it's infancy (only now touching on the mainstream) it needs to develop ITSELF before it can integrate itself within established canons.

I would put it to the good people here we need to be honest with the premise of Gaming as Art, what do we gain or lose regardless of the outcome?, the way our (Western) society perceives and entertains the Arts makes me think we only want the PRESTIGE that comes with the Art label, a affording it a thin veil of protection & security, I say veil as it's all illusory at the end of the day.

So gaming can continue evolving at it's own rate, every generation born from now will have technology and gaming incorporated a little more than the one preceding it, and hopefully it will be (at worst) revered for the glorious entertainment that it is, and not censored down to a lowest of the low denominator.

My two cents

 

[The Other Steve]

I'm not sure what purpose a picture serves other than being a picture, so at that point you kind of lost me.

...

Also art should be able to elicit a response from the viewer by just being personally I have never found any art that has been particularly interesting.

...

In fact the majority of games, movies and music is so much beyond art. The whole games as art discussion is flawed at the most basic of levels, as games are so much more than art, they incorporate all of the different fields of art and then takes them beyond the sum of the parts.

We're mostly on the same page. See, any work is going to have functionality... though I'll admit it isn't the perfect word for what I'm trying to say. A picture, for starters. Paintings are typically designed to decorate a wall, and are composed of a canvas with various pigments on them. This puts severe limitations on it; how can one paint love? Time? Words express some concepts far better, but a written work falls into the traps of language and typically needs to follow the whole formula of characters and plot while it's at it.

Games aren't much different. They need to present the viewer/player with a set of obstacles within a reasonable difficulty range. They generally need graphics, background music, sound effects; just as a painting needs canvas and oils. A game needs a story like a painting needs a subject; both work fine with the more abstract targets.

Games will never be 'art' because 'art' is boring and static, games are dynamic. Remember Killer 7? Some were all like 'oooh'... And got distracted by the 'art', I just saw shitty cell shading and some pretty boring and non-functional (not that they didn't work, but they were awkward and unintuitive) game mechanics.

Art should never be static. Different types of media should "move" differently, however. Look at the Mona Lisa. What's the first thing you notice? The second thing? What do you think about the woman in it? That is the work "moving", if you will. You interact with a game by playing and thinking, you interact with a picture instead by looking at thinking.

Good game mechanics, on the other hand, are bordering on a Science in this day and age. Hee hee.

IMO for something to be art it has to have no physical or usable purpose. Art is an expression, personal emotions, not a commercial product.

I wish I could agree more. Still, a lot of the best works in the world were made mostly to make money. Not all, to be sure, but a sizable number. I'd like to add that the roof of the Sistine Chapel does keep the rain off of your head.

 

[Monkeybone]

As we all know, the greatest arts mimic life

Do we? Coming from a background in art I have to point out this slightly sweeping statement simply isn't true, you've touched on the subject well enough but the debate over what art even is hasn't been decided (most, quite rightly think it shouldn't EVER be!) let alone included video games in it's ranks.

Rather than mimicking life, art is an interpretation at best. Challenging preconceived notions is a staple tenet of the Arts, and with gaming still in it's infancy (only now touching on the mainstream) it needs to develop ITSELF before it can integrate itself within established canons.

I would put it to the good people here we need to be honest with the premise of Gaming as Art, what do we gain or lose regardless of the outcome?, the way our (Western) society perceives and entertains the Arts makes me think we only want the PRESTIGE that comes with the Art label, a affording it a thin veil of protection & security, I say veil as it's all illusory at the end of the day.

So gaming can continue evolving at it's own rate, every generation born from now will have technology and gaming incorporated a little more than the one preceding it, and hopefully it will be (at worst) revered for the glorious entertainment that it is, and not censored down to a lowest of the low denominator.

My two cents

For all your words, none of them stuck. Seriously, you're not in university to dazzle your profs by padding your write up with bullshit to say your opinion, your audience are in their teens and don't know what they're talking about in general... Then again, maybe it's just because I'm learned myself and I had to read and re-read your post over and over again chewing on every word like a cow does on cud before I digested it. If you're going to try to explain a difficult concept, at LEAST put it into terms your audience can relate to.

... Actually, this is a good example as to why games can't be art, only the people who made the game know what's going on, and it just confuses and frustrates people who don't have the same background, level of understanding or degree of ESP to comprehend the message or meaning. It just defeats the purpose entirely.

 

[Fangface74]

It seems your almost offended Monkeybone, why? I don't think all the Escapist members ARE teens and I wouldn't presume so in the first place. I am an artist and a gamer, so if I want to discuss my trade and favourite pastime to the fullest of my vocabulary I will do so. What specifically in the post do you have a problem with and I will attempt to elaborate.

 

[bloodclot]

Actually, computer games have just been officially reckognized as an artform in Germany.

 

[anNIALLator]

considering some of the random, ridiculous stuff that gets into art galleries these days, i don't understand how videogames can not be art. how can a potato with a toothbrush in it be considered art but not the beautifully drawn and rendered hallways of Rapture?

 

[dekkarax]

I don't mind if gaming is not an art form, after all, I did not start playing games to appreiciate their artistic merits, I started because I wanted to play games.

Lets not forget why we all play games in the first place