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

[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.

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 art. The story is art, as a piece of literature. the Music is art. The art designer is an artist. The game that put those together to form an experience you could enjoy is a game.

 

[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.

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?

And that definition is also the closest definition I've ever come to accurately describing what exactly art is.

It matters because it involves a word that we use everyday and yet have difficulty explaining. What good is communication if the meanings for words are different for every user? THIS is the true source of the problem for discussions about art. It's not that the definition of art is subjective, it's that few people can agree upon a reasonable definition of art. OP wanted a discussion about art, and the only we can have this is to have some kind of definition that works for all artistic works.

To answer your last question, it doesn't affect games at all, but understanding that video games ARE in fact a form of art can change the way they are perceived, and change the way we judge them. Why restrict judgement of Video Games to fun-ness, when it has become clear to me that games are less about fun, and more about artistic expression and entertainment, much like the movie industry.

 

[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.

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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

 

[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.

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.

If art is a creative expression of talent or skill, then anything can be art. That isn't true. Sports are that and they are not 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?

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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

My understanding was that you were differentiating the two, when you said "When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective".

In any case, yes, games can be judged as art, and are already judged very similarly to art. Video games are all about bringing out emotions in people, but in a way that is unique, because of its interactive nature.

 

[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.

If art is a creative expression of talent or skill, then anything can be art. That isn't true. Sports are that and they are not art.

By standard definitions, anything can be art, including sports. That is why saying one thing is art and another isn't is so stupid, because anything we do is art. Sports aren't a narrative medium, though.

 

[Zarkov]

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".

My only problem with your arguments is that you insist on carrying the baggage of the word "art". If you were to just drop "art" and focus on the discussion of games, then we'd be at a happy agreement.

Too many people now-a-days think that games must be considered "art" to be taken seriously.

I say, why the hell not? No one even knows what art is anyway. To me, it's like putting importance on an ambiguous category that serves only to validate its further existence.

But what happens when you drop that category? Nothing. Games are games, whether it's considered art by the public eye or not. In which case, I contend we make like the artists themselves and not worry so much about whether the final product is or isn't art, but more about the affect said game or product had. Let's converse about the expression the artist made, not whether that expression is valid.

Even if "good vs bad" is more tangible, it still doesn't get us anywhere. We haven't discussed anything that actually matters to anyone... if we wanted to spend our argument time wisely we'd talk about video games, not about the validity thereof.

 

[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.

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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

My understanding was that you were differentiating the two, when you said "When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective".

In any case, yes, games can be judged as art, and are already judged very similarly to art. Video games are all about bringing out emotions in people, but in a way that is unique, because of its interactive nature.

Yes, I said art is subjective but part of the gamemaking process is art itself, so in it's nature, is subjective, that doesn't tell you it's art.
When we start judging games as art is when the industry goes to hell, you would have all the intelectuals who don't know shit about games coming and saying "a great game because it embodies everything about the renaissance" like Deus Ex, but what about the boss fights? How does the stealth work? Is the story solid? What about character development? You see, if it were judged like art, you would see one side of the coin, I would tell you, play it for the renaissance, maybe you won't like the mechanics.
See what I mean?

 

[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.

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.

If art is a creative expression of talent or skill, then anything can be art. That isn't true. Sports are that and they are not art.

By standard definitions, anything can be art, including sports. That is why saying one thing is art and another isn't is so stupid, because anything we do is art. Sports aren't a narrative medium, though.

Judging by that deffinition sports are art. Creative expression of talent or skill.
Sorry, clicked post accidentaly.
I refuse to believe that anything can be art, because then nothing is art.

 

[Princess Rose]

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're missing the distinction. You CAN judge any work of art while ignoring the aesthetics. You shouldn't, but you can.

My point was that the porta potty entirely lacked aesthetics.

The game can be judged on other merits - like I can judge how well my pretty home toilet works rather than how it looks - but both the toilet and games remain art because they have that aesthetic - or creative - component.

The people who crafted the game are artists - they worked hard to create something that allowed their imagined world to come to life. That's art - that's a particularly difficult, and powerful form of art.

That doesn't mean that games are ONLY art. They are also games. They're both. They can be judged on aesthetics, or on practical functionality, or both. Even if you don't care about the artistic side of games, the games still have it - they are still art, even if they are ALSO more than 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.

That's why we need to put the "are games art" argument to rest. They are. Do you know how I know? Because they are created by artists.

When a craftsman carves a beautiful wooden chair from a block of wood, he's making something beautiful - he's making art. He's also making something to sit on - it has function, and CAN be judged solely on those merits, but even so it doesn't make that artisan anything other than an artist. If it was created by an artist who was attempting to express himself, then it's art.

The people who design games are artists. Just ASK them. They'll tell you so. Instead of carving wood, they create code. The material is different, but the expression is the same.

 

[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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

My understanding was that you were differentiating the two, when you said "When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective".

In any case, yes, games can be judged as art, and are already judged very similarly to art. Video games are all about bringing out emotions in people, but in a way that is unique, because of its interactive nature.

Yes, I said art is subjective but part of the gamemaking process is art itself, so in it's nature, is subjective, that doesn't tell you it's art.
When we start judging games as art is when the industry goes to hell, you would have all the intelectuals who don't know shit about games coming and saying "a great game because it embodies everything about the renaissance" like Deus Ex, but what about the boss fights? How does the stealth work? Is the story solid? What about character development? You see, if it were judged like art, you would see one side of the coin, I would tell you, play it for the renaissance, maybe you won't like the mechanics.
See what I mean?

the game mechanics exist for a single purpose, to evoke a sense of enjoyment or at least a sense of satisfaction from the player. Because of this, games are Art. Anything purposefully designed to evoke emotion from an observer/participant is art.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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".

My only problem with your arguments is that you insist on carrying the baggage of the word "art". If you were to just drop "art" and focus on the discussion of games, then we'd be at a happy agreement.

Too many people now-a-days think that games must be considered "art" to be taken seriously.

I say, why the hell not? No one even knows what art is anyway. To me, it's like putting importance on an ambiguous category that serves only to validate its further existence.

But what happens when you drop that category? Nothing. Games are games, whether it's considered art by the public eye or not. In which case, I contend we make like the artists themselves and not worry so much about whether the final product is or isn't art, but more about the affect said game or product had. Let's converse about the expression the artist made, not whether that expression is valid.

Even if "good vs bad" is more tangible, it still doesn't get us anywhere. We haven't discussed anything that actually matters to anyone... if we wanted to spend our argument time wisely we'd talk about video games, not about the validity thereof.

This person gets it. Games will be mature as a medium when we stop measuring them by the stick formed by older media. We don't need the establishment to accept them as art; we just need the generations that grew up playing them to outlive their elders, and to appreciate them as what they definitely are -- games -- and not as what they might be if we tart them up enough -- art.

 

[Princess Rose]

My only problem with your arguments is that you insist on carrying the baggage of the word "art". If you were to just drop "art" and focus on the discussion of games, then we'd be at a happy agreement.

Even if "good vs bad" is more tangible, it still doesn't get us anywhere. We haven't discussed anything that actually matters to anyone... if we wanted to spend our argument time wisely we'd talk about video games, not about the validity thereof.

Well, one reason is because art is protected. If you're expressing yourself artistically, you're allowed to create things that people might not like - that they might find offensive or shocking.

This can allow the artist to make statements she wouldn't otherwise be allowed to make. It's the reason why art is protected.

Besides, as an artist in a media that often gets the "is it art" question applied to it as well, I know that it is very frustrating trying to be taken seriously by my peers. I am an artist - I want my work to be taken seriously. How can I not give that same respect to game designers, who have the same problems I do?

 

[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.

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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

My understanding was that you were differentiating the two, when you said "When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective".

In any case, yes, games can be judged as art, and are already judged very similarly to art. Video games are all about bringing out emotions in people, but in a way that is unique, because of its interactive nature.

Yes, I said art is subjective but part of the gamemaking process is art itself, so in it's nature, is subjective, that doesn't tell you it's art.
When we start judging games as art is when the industry goes to hell, you would have all the intelectuals who don't know shit about games coming and saying "a great game because it embodies everything about the renaissance" like Deus Ex, but what about the boss fights? How does the stealth work? Is the story solid? What about character development? You see, if it were judged like art, you would see one side of the coin, I would tell you, play it for the renaissance, maybe you won't like the mechanics.
See what I mean?

the game mechanics exist for a single purpose, to evoke a sense of enjoyment or at least a sense of satisfaction from the player. Because of this, games are Art. Anything purposefully designed to evoke emotion from an observer/participant is art.

YES and No at the same time. If something can't be judged like art it's not art.
If my cellphone evokes emotion when I see it because it reminds me of my girlfriend, it's not art, it's a cellphone.

 

[The Random One]

It's not art. The story is art, as a piece of literature. the Music is art. The art designer is an artist. The game that put those together to form an experience you could enjoy is a game.

By that token you could say movies are not art. The music is art, the screenplay is art, the acting is art, but the movie that put those together to form an experience you could enjoy is a movie! Except there are things you can only do in a movie, like the editing, the tone, etc. that only work when the separate parts are put together. Likewise, a game can put disparate pieces of art and make them work and become something beyond; like a movie, a game could combine average music, visuals and story in a way that becomes more interesting and engaging because of how those elements interact.

 

[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?

Yes, exactly true but, who the heck said games aren't subjective? Not because they are subjective, they have to be judged as art. They don't. They are games, and they are subjective because I might love oblivion but if you don't like fantasy, you won't like it. What I'm trying to say is games can't be judged as art so the cease to be art.

My understanding was that you were differentiating the two, when you said "When you talk about art it's waaaaay more complicated, because art is subjective".

In any case, yes, games can be judged as art, and are already judged very similarly to art. Video games are all about bringing out emotions in people, but in a way that is unique, because of its interactive nature.

Yes, I said art is subjective but part of the gamemaking process is art itself, so in it's nature, is subjective, that doesn't tell you it's art.
When we start judging games as art is when the industry goes to hell, you would have all the intelectuals who don't know shit about games coming and saying "a great game because it embodies everything about the renaissance" like Deus Ex, but what about the boss fights? How does the stealth work? Is the story solid? What about character development? You see, if it were judged like art, you would see one side of the coin, I would tell you, play it for the renaissance, maybe you won't like the mechanics.
See what I mean?

the game mechanics exist for a single purpose, to evoke a sense of enjoyment or at least a sense of satisfaction from the player. Because of this, games are Art. Anything purposefully designed to evoke emotion from an observer/participant is art.

YES and No at the same time. If something can't be judged like art it's not art.
If my cellphone evokes emotion when I see it because it reminds me of my girlfriend, it's not art, it's a cellphone.

note I said "purposefully designed to evoke emotion", that is, the point of its existence is to evoke emotion. The point of a video game is to evoke emotion, whereas a cell phone's primary purpose is communication.

 

[easternflame]

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're missing the distinction. You CAN judge any work of art while ignoring the aesthetics. You shouldn't, but you can.

My point was that the porta potty entirely lacked aesthetics.

The game can be judged on other merits - like I can judge how well my pretty home toilet works rather than how it looks - but both the toilet and games remain art because they have that aesthetic - or creative - component.

The people who crafted the game are artists - they worked hard to create something that allowed their imagined world to come to life. That's art - that's a particularly difficult, and powerful form of art.

That doesn't mean that games are ONLY art. They are also games. They're both. They can be judged on aesthetics, or on practical functionality, or both. Even if you don't care about the artistic side of games, the games still have it - they are still art, even if they are ALSO more than 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.

That's why we need to put the "are games art" argument to rest. They are. Do you know how I know? Because they are created by artists.

When a craftsman carves a beautiful wooden chair from a block of wood, he's making something beautiful - he's making art. He's also making something to sit on - it has function, and CAN be judged solely on those merits, but even so it doesn't make that artisan anything other than an artist. If it was created by an artist who was attempting to express himself, then it's art.

The people who design games are artists. Just ASK them. They'll tell you so. Instead of carving wood, they create code. The material is different, but the expression is the same.

Not purely created by artists, is a programmer an artist because he sits in front of his computer so he can bring a world to life? No. He's a programmer. A damn genius who deserves merit, just not artistic merit.

 

[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?

And that definition is also the closest definition I've ever come to accurately describing what exactly art is.

It matters because it involves a word that we use everyday and yet have difficulty explaining. What good is communication if the meanings for words are different for every user? THIS is the true source of the problem for discussions about art. It's not that the definition of art is subjective, it's that few people can agree upon a reasonable definition of art. OP wanted a discussion about art, and the only we can have this is to have some kind of definition that works for all artistic works.

To answer your last question, it doesn't affect games at all, but understanding that video games ARE in fact a form of art can change the way they are perceived, and change the way we judge them. Why restrict judgement of Video Games to fun-ness, when it has become clear to me that games are less about fun, and more about artistic expression and entertainment, much like the movie industry.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

We don't need the word "art" to validate the seriousness of a medium. Does an artist think of how he creates arts before he creates it? No. He expresses himself, and society deems it art.

And in all honesty, why try defining a word that will never clearly be defined? Why don't we just drop the ambiguous word and get on with life?

You use too many vague words. Fun. What is fun? I don't know. I know what brings me enjoyment, and I also happen to understand that fun is often synonymous with enjoyment. Thus, enjoyment can be fun but can also be something else. It can also be compelling. But I also find compelling subjects to be fun.

Do you see where vagueness just hits a certain wall that won't allow for subjective argument?

An argument that centers around subjective vagueness is bound to not get anyone anywhere.

So, what should we do? Argue over something that matters. Let's talk about "World of Goo", or "Sid Meier's Civilization" and find out what these games really mean about us as humans. Now that's a discussion I'd enjoy talking about.

Too bad no one has the balls to try and discuss a difficult subject. Everyone wants to talk about what art is, because to have a definition of art you need literally no background on the subject.

Depressing really.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

My only problem with your arguments is that you insist on carrying the baggage of the word "art". If you were to just drop "art" and focus on the discussion of games, then we'd be at a happy agreement.

Even if "good vs bad" is more tangible, it still doesn't get us anywhere. We haven't discussed anything that actually matters to anyone... if we wanted to spend our argument time wisely we'd talk about video games, not about the validity thereof.

Well, one reason is because art is protected. If you're expressing yourself artistically, you're allowed to create things that people might not like - that they might find offensive or shocking.

This can allow the artist to make statements she wouldn't otherwise be allowed to make. It's the reason why art is protected.

Besides, as an artist in a media that often gets the "is it art" question applied to it as well, I know that it is very frustrating trying to be taken seriously by my peers. I am an artist - I want my work to be taken seriously. How can I not give that same respect to game designers, who have the same problems I do?

Nope, that's a flawed premise based on a severe misunderstanding of the Miller test. Time for some copypasta:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

To be classified as obscenity, an individual work -- and I do mean an individual work, as this is decided on a case by case basis -- has to fail on all three prongs. I've never seen a game that got released outside of Japan that would fail the second prong, and as for the third prong, there's a difference between having absolutely no artistic merit, and not being art. I don't know of any videogame that is completely lacking in that respect.

That said, even if it came down from on high that videogames, as a medium, were art, that wouldn't protect them. As I said, it's judged on a case by case basis. Otherwise, pornography (which is what the miller test is supposed to make illegal) could never be defined as obscene, because every major method of distributing it uses a recognized artistic medium -- usually film.

 

[Princess Rose]

Not purely created by artists, is a programmer an artist because he sits in front of his computer so he can bring a world to life? No. He's a programmer. A damn genius who deserves merit, just not artistic merit.

Michelangelo didn't dig his own marble out of the ground either. He had skilled people who knew how to do that, and they had minions to do the heavy lifting. You wouldn't say David isn't a work of art just because some people who weren't artists helped Michelangelo out.

For that matter, a painter doesn't mix his own paints anymore. The guy who works the paint machine at the paint factory isn't an artist, but he's partly responsible for the painting getting done. Again, just because other hands help doesn't make the end result any less art.