Games are not art. They are something more. Something better.

[easternflame]

DISCLAIMER: Not a rant
Art is a form of expression. But it can't be defined like that, it's too broad, if that's the case, then anything can be art. That brings me to my next point. Art is purely a aesthetic, music, film, visual arts, literature, all these are aesthetic. You see, they embody something beautiful(not all of them), games do that, but games don't. Games are Something more you see, if I give you a terrible game with the best graphics ever, you still won't like it, the mechanic doesn't work and that is it. BUT take a game like Minecraft with a great mechanic but no story and bad graphics (good aesthetic, but not going there right now) and it's an absolutely fantastic game, it's better than other games with story and graphics.
I used to say "games are the new form of art" but that has no foundations, again, anything could be "the new art". Then you go to, games are not the new form of art, they are the same as literature, music, film, but then again, I ask, Can it be judged like these? No. Because in here you interact. Again, a movie can be about visuals and aestethics, story of course, but a game is mainly judged by how well it's mechanic works. And let me tell you my friends, if somehting can't be judged as art it's not art.
Now don't get me wrong games are awesome, they are made by some people who are artists, but the game itself isn't art.
And also this doesn't degrade them, I used to think this would make them less, not art, then we will not have approval from the other mediums. We will, we are different, but we deserve the same respect.
We don't need to be art. We are something more.

So, agree? Disagree?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Games aren't really art, but they aren't anything more, either; they're games, and they're quite good at being games. Some games also aspire to be art, but they tend to be bad at it.

 

[rabidmidget]

Oh look, a semantics argument over the definition of the word, art.

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

 

[lollypopalopicus]

while you raise an interesting point I have to disagree because games are not solely jugged on mechanics. well... let me rephrase that. they are usually jugged on mechanics, my point is that they shouldn't be. art makes you feel and think and anything that can make you feel like an entirely different person (insert yahtzee's immersion example here), can make you think as well. I would argue that they are art and if done properly can be considered greater art than paintings or literature

 

[Atmos Duality]

Oh look, a semantics argument over the definition of the word, art.

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

Don't forget the Slippery slopes too! Perhaps even a Begging the Question if the topic reaches more than two pages!

But yeah. Artistic merit is too subjective in nature to really defend properly.

 

[Zarkov]

Well, my good friend, you and everyone else gets to decide what their own personal definition of art is.

This toilet, right over here next to me, is art and for that matter the Mona Lisa is not art 'cause I said.

And really, I don't even need to be consistent with my definition of art. No one else is, so why should I?

The discussion should not be whether video games are art; who gives a shit, and what's art anyway? Too ambiguous for me. The argument should be about how video games can affect our lives (for better and worse) and how we can convey meaning and thoughts through the medium as a whole. And, for that matter, how we should go about making the "perfect" game. Now that would be a discussion worth talking about. Not only is everyone's definition of "perfect" different but it could really improve the medium as a whole if it listened.

But eh, whatever. I'll go back to my humble abode and complain to my imaginary friends.

EDIT:

Oh look, a semantics argument over the definition of the word, art.

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

Yeah, pretty much. I'm almost sad at the amount of time that's going to be wasted on this thread over what art is or is not.

 

[easternflame]

Games aren't really art, but they aren't anything more, either; they're games, and they're quite good at being games. Some games also aspire to be art, but they tend to be bad at it.

True enough.

 

[easternflame]

Well, my good friend, you and everyone else gets to decide what their own personal definition of art is.

This toilet, right over here next to me, is art and for that matter the Mona Lisa is not art 'cause I said.

And really, I don't even need to be consistent with my definition of art. No one else is, so why should I?

The discussion should not be whether video games are art; who gives a shit, and what's art anyway? Too ambiguous for me. The argument should be about how video games can affect our lives (for better and worse) and how we can convey meaning and thoughts through the medium as a whole. And, for that matter, how we should go about making the "perfect" game. Now that would be a discussion worth talking about. Not only is everyone's definition of "perfect" different but it could really improve the medium as a whole if it listened.

But eh, whatever. I'll go back to my humble abode and complain to my imaginary friends.

but then if you can define what art is then everything is art.

 

[Princess Rose]

Art is a form of expression. But it can't be defined like that, it's too broad, if that's the case, then anything can be art.

And that's where you go wrong.

Of course anything can be art. There was a whole art movement about that fact.

You look at a common public toilet. Now, imagine it without years of disgusting stuff all over it. At it's heart, it's a beautiful and functional piece of porcelain that was designed by someone to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. That design was someone's expression - when it was first designed, it was art.

The billions of copies since are still art, in the same way that a photocopy of the Mona Lisa is art - just not as good as the original.

Everything in our lives has been designed to be attractive by someone - usually someone with a degree in doing just that. Everything around us is art.

Which is why so many people forget that all those things are art - because we're surrounded with so much beauty that we talk for granted... and poop in.

 

[Zarkov]

Well, my good friend, you and everyone else gets to decide what their own personal definition of art is.

This toilet, right over here next to me, is art and for that matter the Mona Lisa is not art 'cause I said.

And really, I don't even need to be consistent with my definition of art. No one else is, so why should I?

The discussion should not be whether video games are art; who gives a shit, and what's art anyway? Too ambiguous for me. The argument should be about how video games can affect our lives (for better and worse) and how we can convey meaning and thoughts through the medium as a whole. And, for that matter, how we should go about making the "perfect" game. Now that would be a discussion worth talking about. Not only is everyone's definition of "perfect" different but it could really improve the medium as a whole if it listened.

But eh, whatever. I'll go back to my humble abode and complain to my imaginary friends.

but then if you can define what art is then everything is art.

Yeah. Pretty much. I think we should drop the word "art" all together and actually focus on something that matters...

 

[Drakmeire]

Art refers to any form of expression. games express the developer as well as the player in some occasions. games can be both art and a tool for art. Everything can be art if use properly. art has a wide definition of utility. from minor expression to questioning the realms of being. therefore nothing can be "More" than art.

 

[easternflame]

while you raise an interesting point I have to disagree because games are not solely jugged on mechanics. well... let me rephrase that. they are usually jugged on mechanics, my point is that they shouldn't be. art makes you feel and think and anything that can make you feel like an entirely different person (insert yahtzee's immersion example here), can make you think as well. I would argue that they are art and if done properly can be considered greater art than paintings or literature

How do you judge a painting? In the end, it's immersion level is part of how the mechanic is set and how well the story is told(artistic merit there) but as someone has pointed out, games can't be judged as art, they have to be judged as games.

 

[Princess Rose]

Well, my good friend, you and everyone else gets to decide what their own personal definition of art is.

I also disagree with that. Everyone has their own personal definition of what GOOD art is, but art itself has a very simple definition - anything where someone has expressly attempted to express themselves.

It's funny that you bring up the toilet. As I mentioned in my post above, someone worked very hard to design toilets to be both functional and beautiful. We tend to forget that, but it's true - someone slaved and crafted and loved to make that toilet (or it's progenitor at any rate).

People tend to argue about what is art when what they should be arguing about is what is GOOD art. Anything and everything CAN be art - but it isn't necessarily GOOD art. That is a matter for personal taste.

 

[zehydra]

How can you say that games are better than art if you have already specified that you cannot give us a comparative definition of art?

Art is one of two things: Emotional expression, or expression with the intent of emotional reaction.

Video games set out to do many things, but one thing in common, is that they set out to entertain. Many people use "fun" as the standard for judging video games, but honestly, I think we can all agree that's about as useful as judging movies by how fun they were to watch.

For instance, Schindler's list is a masterpiece of a movie, it is very emotional and very engaging, but would I ever call it "fun to watch"? No. Games can and often do the exact same thing: they play on your emotions through interactive experience, rather than passively experience (movies).

So are games art? YES. Whether the game is out to move you, enlighten you, shock you, or to just give you a good time (Pong), games are indeed art.

 

[zehydra]

while you raise an interesting point I have to disagree because games are not solely jugged on mechanics. well... let me rephrase that. they are usually jugged on mechanics, my point is that they shouldn't be. art makes you feel and think and anything that can make you feel like an entirely different person (insert yahtzee's immersion example here), can make you think as well. I would argue that they are art and if done properly can be considered greater art than paintings or literature

How do you judge a painting? In the end, it's immersion level is part of how the mechanic is set and how well the story is told(artistic merit there) but as someone has pointed out, games can't be judged as art, they have to be judged as games.

And what criterion exactly are you using to judge games, that don't fall into the same problems when judging art? Why NOT judge it as art?

 

[easternflame]

Art is a form of expression. But it can't be defined like that, it's too broad, if that's the case, then anything can be art.

And that's where you go wrong.

Of course anything can be art. There was a whole art movement about that fact.

You look at a common public toilet. Now, imagine it without years of disgusting stuff all over it. At it's heart, it's a beautiful and functional piece of porcelain that was designed by someone to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. That design was someone's expression - when it was first designed, it was art.

The billions of copies since are still art, in the same way that a photocopy of the Mona Lisa is art - just not as good as the original.

Everything in our lives has been designed to be attractive by someone - usually someone with a degree in doing just that. Everything around us is art.

Which is why so many people forget that all those things are art - because we're surrounded with so much beauty that we talk for granted... and poop in.

You excel at these example don't you.
If then, anything can be art, then there is no point in discussion now is there? If everything is art then nothing is art.

 

[funguy2121]

DISCLAIMER: Not a rant
Art is a form of expression. But it can't be defined like that, it's too broad, if that's the case, then anything can be art. That brings me to my next point. Art is purely a aesthetic, music, film, visual arts, literature, all these are aesthetic. You see, they embody something beautiful(not all of them), games do that, but games don't. Games are Something more you see, if I give you a terrible game with the best graphics ever, you still won't like it, the mechanic doesn't work and that is it. BUT take a game like Minecraft with a great mechanic but no story and bad graphics (good aesthetic, but not going there right now) and it's an absolutely fantastic game, it's better than other games with story and graphics.
I used to say "games are the new form of art" but that has no foundations, again, anything could be "the new art". Then you go to, games are not the new form of art, they are the same as literature, music, film, but then again, I ask, Can it be judged like these? No. Because in here you interact. Again, a movie can be about visuals and aestethics, story of course, but a game is mainly judged by how well it's mechanic works. And let me tell you my friends, if somehting can't be judged as art it's not art.
Now don't get me wrong games are awesome, they are made by some people who are artists, but the game itself isn't art.
And also this doesn't degrade them, I used to think this would make them less, not art, then we will not have approval from the other mediums. We will, we are different, but we deserve the same respect.
We don't need to be art. We are something more.

So, agree? Disagree?

Oddly enough, your avatar is from South Park, a work of comedic art (and occasional political grandstanding) in which the visuals are intentionally shitty.

Your idea of art is indicative of a person who enjoys art as a spectator. I assure you, if you were a musician or a writer you'd find art to be a lot more interactive. Interactivity is central to games, which is why it is a unique art form, but it IS art nonetheless. It isn't something more, or something less, it's just a newer form of art. It's also entertainment, sure, but don't get me started on TV.

 

[easternflame]

while you raise an interesting point I have to disagree because games are not solely jugged on mechanics. well... let me rephrase that. they are usually jugged on mechanics, my point is that they shouldn't be. art makes you feel and think and anything that can make you feel like an entirely different person (insert yahtzee's immersion example here), can make you think as well. I would argue that they are art and if done properly can be considered greater art than paintings or literature

How do you judge a painting? In the end, it's immersion level is part of how the mechanic is set and how well the story is told(artistic merit there) but as someone has pointed out, games can't be judged as art, they have to be judged as games.

And what criterion exactly are you using to judge games, that don't fall into the same problems when judging art? Why NOT judge it as art?

Sorry, but this mortal form ceased to function. Explain please?

 

[zehydra]

Oh look, a semantics argument over the definition of the word, art.

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

Strawman arguments?

 

[easternflame]

Art refers to any form of expression. games express the developer as well as the player in some occasions. games can be both art and a tool for art. Everything can be art if use properly. art has a wide definition of utility. from minor expression to questioning the realms of being. therefore nothing can be "More" than art.

If art refers to any form of expression, then art is everywhere and it's everything, and that isn't true.