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

[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?

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

Well, how do you go about judging games? and how do you go about judging art?

 

[Drakmeire]

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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UQCKHrVaXNU/TaGH9-H4KjI/AAAAAAAAAB0/EJvwv6D2n0E/s1600/1466.jpg
The story of a boy being driven by an unseen force to commit very gray acts of morality so he can have a chance to see his lost love again. As the game progresses the player is forced to slay beautiful,innocent, stoic creatures as the character is slowly consumed by a force that is a physical manifestation of his pride, resolve, and guilt which slowly makes him appear less human. By the end you must question if killing is ever the correct course of action and if a greater good even exists. All told with minimal dialog.
if that's not art I don't know what is.
But I guess you can think whatever you want as well.

 

[zehydra]

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.

Except everything isn't a form of expression.

 

[Zarkov]

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 expressed 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.

Yeah, but you seriously just run in a loop going that way.

You then have to define "GOOD".

What is good? Hell if I know. And guess what? Everyone's definition of good is as different as everyone's definition of art. So in reality you haven't gone anywhere but in a circle by making that argument.

And after you've beaten your point of "good" art to death, where have you gotten? Has anything improved in the meantime? Did you learn anything, did anyone come to a conclusion?

You see how terribly pointless a conversation over art is, right? What we should be doing is discussing how to make games better than they are. How to get them past the CODs and Halos of our time to a transcendence type state where video games start to matter.

Halos and CODs are great for having fun and killing time, but I just wonder what else games can be. And it doesn't even have to scream "PRETENTIOUS!" when you start to talk about it.

 

[Sandernista]

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.

I don't really understand the 'games aren't really art' argument.

Can you define art in a way that doesn't include games, yet includes movies, paintings, musics etc?

 

[rabidmidget]

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

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

Strawman arguments?

It's a logical fallacy where someone misinterprets (purposefully or not) the other's proposition and creates an argument that argues the false proposition rather than the original.

 

[Princess Rose]

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.

Um, thank you? I think?

Anyway, I didn't say that everything is art. Just lots of things. The toilet was designed by a craftsman to be beautiful and functional - I mean, look at Porta Potties - those are NOT art, because they have function only without aesthetic. No one attempted to make Porta Potties look good - just obvious, so people don't back their cars into them.

However, your other point stands - there is no reason to discuss "what is art" - it's a terrible conversation anyway, and mostly serves to allow people to belittle new forms of art.

The discussion should be what is good art.

Britney Spears, for example, falls into my listing for Bad Art. She's an artist, she's just not a very good one.

On the other hand, I very much enjoy the work of Lady Gaga - both her music, and her walking parody of the music industry. I enjoy the beautiful irony that she creates. I believe she is a good artist.

However, a friend of mine hates Lady Gaga with a passion. She disagrees with me. We've had discussions - excellent discussions - concerning the quality of Lady Gaga's work.

So that's the discussion we should be having. How games can be a unique type of art, and how we can make them better art.

Yeah, but you seriously just run in a loop going that way.

You then have to define "GOOD".

What is good? Hell if I know. And guess what? Everyone's definition of good is as different as everyone's definition of art. So in reality you haven't gone anywhere but in a circle by making that argument.

And after you've beaten your point of "good" art to death, where have you gotten? Has anything improved in the meantime? Did you learn anything, did anyone come to a conclusion?

Not at all - the "is it art" discussion is one of negation - if someone says it's not art, then they have ended the discussion entirely.

If we talk about art being good or bad, we can figure out what we like about some pieces, and what we don't about others.

Are we going to change the industry on this forum? Probably not - unless our discussions gives some indy game designer an idea to use. But if people no longer have to argue that games ARE art, then they can turn their attention to critiquing the artistic merits of a particular game and create new and innovative games.

So, while good vs bad is still a matter of taste, it is far more tangible and worthwhile than "is it or isn't it".

 

[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?

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.

My avatar is based on the south park avatar creator. I like the aesthetics that south park has, certian simplicity to the thing. Don't judge my views on that, it's what we call judging a book by it's cover.

I am not a musician, true, no artist either, but I understand the interactivity you're talking about. But you can't judge a game the same way you would judge a painting. Or a movie, again, if I can't judge it like such, I can't say it's art. It's like saying it's pasta, but it doesn't smell, taste, or look like pasta, it might be good sushi, still not pasta.

 

[zehydra]

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

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

Strawman arguments?

It's a logical fallacy where someone misinterprets (purposefully or not) the other's proposition and creates an argument that argues the false proposition rather than the original.

Ah. So an example would be if someone, rather than refute his definition Art, decided to refute his conclusion with his own definition of art first?

 

[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.

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

Why isn't it? what is a painting? an expression. what is a movie? an expression. what is a play? an expression.
what disbars the simple act of wearing clothes from being art. it's a way to express yourself, same as painting, statues, movies, plays, and games.
anything that shows an act of showing emotion, belief, or thought can be art.
I'd be zen and say that EVERYTHING is art but products made for a functional purpose is not art. a pencil is not art and neither is a computer unless it is given the human touch to convey an aesthetic.
everything that is made with expression in mind over practicality is art.

 

[ckam]

So this is just a personal definition of art than anything else. Oh, boy. Why don't we just say we all have different interpretations of art and leave it at that. Hurray for semantics.

 

[Zarkov]

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.

Except everything isn't a form of expression.

I'm sorry, but this has got to be the most hilarious set of responses ever.

What the hell is the point?

Man, that one earlier point sure hit it on the button.
Here comes the useless discussion over what art is or is not.

 

[zehydra]

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.

Except everything isn't a form of expression.

I'm sorry, but this has got to be the most hilarious set of responses ever.

What the hell is the point?

Man, that one earlier point sure hit it on the button.
Here comes the useless discussion over what art is or is not.

Art is either A) Intentional self-expression for the sake of expression, or B) Expression for the sake of evoking emotional response. I can't think of anything that you'd call art that it is an exception to this rule.

 

[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?

Well, how do you go about judging games? and how do you go about judging art?

Got it.
When it comes to judging games, many things must come into consideration. But one of the most important is how well the mechanics work and how immersive the world is. From there you build up. Immerssion comes in many forms, character design and development, aesthetics, story, in some cases, currency(example dead island, the currency is a factor that really takes you out of the game, why is the workbench taking my money and who is using it?). Then you go to mechanics, how well does this game play, when you're talking about an RPG, how can I balance my character, in a shooter it can be judged by the freedom they give you to set out in a specific task, Road A and Road B. This and many other factors make a game good or bad. When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective, but not because it's subjective, does it mean it can't have a specific set of parameters. For some, how does this make me feel, what emotions does it bring out in me? Show 3 different people a music composition by Bach, then ask, what did you feel? What did you like? They will say 3 different things because art is about touch, education, and experience in a way. Games can't be judged as such because the games work very differently and the reason why, is that the spectator isn't just a spectator, he is a part of the story.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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're talking about Dadaism, which was quite literally a prank that a group of artists played on the establishment. They were trying to see how far they would go before someone called them out on just how terrible the "art" they were making was, but the Emperor's New Clothes effect kicked in, and nobody ever did. Their main philosophy was that the notion of "art" was a worthless idea, because anyone could call anything art and get away with it. Then they proceeded to do so, and made lots of money. I actually have a lot of respect for the original Dadaists; they knew that they were making crap, and they laughed all the way to the bank. Most modern artists that have followed in their footsteps forget that, and actually think they're doing something profound.

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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UQCKHrVaXNU/TaGH9-H4KjI/AAAAAAAAAB0/EJvwv6D2n0E/s1600/1466.jpg
The story of a boy being driven by an unseen force to commit very gray acts of morality so he can have a chance to see his lost love again. As the game progresses the player is forced to slay beautiful,innocent, stoic creatures as the character is slowly consumed by a force that is a physical manifestation of his pride, resolve, and guilt which slowly makes him appear less human. By the end you must question if killing is ever the correct course of action and if a greater good even exists. All told with minimal dialog.
if that's not art I don't know what is.
But I guess you can think whatever you want as well.

It's not that games can't be art, it's that they're not as good at being art as they are at being games, and most "arty" games wind up being both terrible art and terrible games. I have to admit, though; while it's been sitting on my shelf for the last 6 months, I have yet to get around to playing Shadow of the Colossus. Maybe that will be the game that finally convinces me games can be both good games and good art; up to this point, I haven't seen anything that's done both well. By the way, isn't it just a boss rush, mechanically speaking?

 

[brainslurper]

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.

Games are a creative expression of talent or skill, so yes, they are art.

In my opinion we haven't finished accepting games the way we accepted books, then radio, then comics, then TV. Also, the only thing that sets games apart from other mediums is that they are interactive, which is the excuse anti game activists are using to justify their attempted censorship. But I suppose the same was true with all the earlier forms of art, they all had one defining aspect that set them apart from their predecessors.

 

[Zarkov]

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.

Except everything isn't a form of expression.

I'm sorry, but this has got to be the most hilarious set of responses ever.

What the hell is the point?

Man, that one earlier point sure hit it on the button.
Here comes the useless discussion over what art is or is not.

Art is either A) Intentional self-expression for the sake of expression, or B) Expression for the sake of evoking emotional response. I can't think of anything that you'd call art that it is an exception to this rule.

Well, that's your definition. Everyone and their dog (as Yahtzee would say) has their own definition.

So I ask you: Why the hell does it matter? Does this discussion benefit anyone anywhere? Does forward contemporary thinking, does it make games better as medium?

Nope. So, about them Gears 3, right?

 

[brainslurper]

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.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UQCKHrVaXNU/TaGH9-H4KjI/AAAAAAAAAB0/EJvwv6D2n0E/s1600/1466.jpg
The story of a boy being driven by an unseen force to commit very gray acts of morality so he can have a chance to see his lost love again. As the game progresses the player is forced to slay beautiful,innocent, stoic creatures as the character is slowly consumed by a force that is a physical manifestation of his pride, resolve, and guilt which slowly makes him appear less human. By the end you must question if killing is ever the correct course of action and if a greater good even exists. All told with minimal dialog.
if that's not art I don't know what is.
But I guess you can think whatever you want as well.

And then look what BioWare and Bethesda can do...

 

[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?

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

Well, how do you go about judging games? and how do you go about judging art?

Got it.
When it comes to judging games, many things must come into consideration. But one of the most important is how well the mechanics work and how immersive the world is. From there you build up. Immerssion comes in many forms, character design and development, aesthetics, story, in some cases, currency(example dead island, the currency is a factor that really takes you out of the game, why is the workbench taking my money and who is using it?). Then you go to mechanics, how well does this game play, when you're talking about an RPG, how can I balance my character, in a shooter it can be judged by the freedom they give you to set out in a specific task, Road A and Road B. This and many other factors make a game good or bad. When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective, but not because it's subjective, does it mean it can't have a specific set of parameters. For some, how does this make me feel, what emotions does it bring out in me? Show 3 different people a music composition by Bach, then ask, what did you feel? What did you like? They will say 3 different things because art is about touch, education, and experience in a way. Games can't be judged as such because the games work very differently and the reason why, is that the spectator isn't just a spectator, he is a part of the story.

ah, but isn't immersion something you feel? That is, if something isn't just "immersive", it "feels immersive". But just what is immersion? I believe that immersion is the ability of any medium to create the sensation for the experiencer (player) to feel as if he is in the world described by the medium (game, movie, song). Since this is a value based upon a personal sensation/experience, isn't it safe to say that this too, is subjective?

 

[easternflame]

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.

Um, thank you? I think?

Anyway, I didn't say that everything is art. Just lots of things. The toilet was designed by a craftsman to be beautiful and functional - I mean, look at Porta Potties - those are NOT art, because they have function only without aesthetic. No one attempted to make Porta Potties look good - just obvious, so people don't back their cars into them.

However, your other point stands - there is no reason to discuss "what is art" - it's a terrible conversation anyway, and mostly serves to allow people to belittle new forms of art.

The discussion should be what is good art.

Britney Spears, for example, falls into my listing for Bad Art. She's an artist, she's just not a very good one.

On the other hand, I very much enjoy the work of Lady Gaga - both her music, and her walking parody of the music industry. I enjoy the beautiful irony that she creates. I believe she is a good artist.

However, a friend of mine hates Lady Gaga with a passion. She disagrees with me. We've had discussions - excellent discussions - concerning the quality of Lady Gaga's work.

So that's the discussion we should be having. How games can be a unique type of art, and how we can make them better art.

Yeah, but you seriously just run in a loop going that way.

You then have to define "GOOD".

What is good? Hell if I know. And guess what? Everyone's definition of good is as different as everyone's definition of art. So in reality you haven't gone anywhere but in a circle by making that argument.

And after you've beaten your point of "good" art to death, where have you gotten? Has anything improved in the meantime? Did you learn anything, did anyone come to a conclusion?

Not at all - the "is it art" discussion is one of negation - if someone says it's not art, then they have ended the discussion entirely.

If we talk about art being good or bad, we can figure out what we like about some pieces, and what we don't about others.

Are we going to change the industry on this forum? Probably not - unless our discussions gives some indy game designer an idea to use. But if people no longer have to argue that games ARE art, then they can turn their attention to critiquing the artistic merits of a particular game and create new and innovative games.

So, while good vs bad is still a matter of taste, it is far more tangible and worthwhile than "is it or isn't it".

I do find your examples good for the record, not being sarcastic.

Now concerning your post, you said it [...]"The toilet was designed by a craftsman to be beautiful and functional - I mean, look at Porta Potties - those are NOT art, because they have function only without aesthetic". You said it it isn't art because it functions without the aesthetic. PRECISELY! Games CAN be judged without their aesthetic part. Hence, not art.

You are right about the part where we should disscuss if the art is good or not but, how can we if we are trying to agree on games as art or not.