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

[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.

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.

"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."

very good point right there. When I say "fun", I do mean personal enjoyment or satisfaction. Finding something compelling, as you said, will also give personal satisfaction.

But on your last bit there, I say, to have a coherent discussion about art, and video games as art, there must be a coherent establishment of the terms with which we are discussing. I understand you find the debate of whether or not video games are art to be pointless, but I disagree, because I believe you can have an objective understanding of what art is, and whether or not video games qualify. I also believe it is important to do this because we live in a societies where the word "art" is thrown around nearly randomly, but is such an important word to our culture, and cultures in general. An objective understanding of art is the key to an objective understanding of culture. There are many who wish to wipe video games, (non-violent included) from the face of the earth, because they believe they are causing problems in children, and/or bring no cultural value. This discussion is my challenging of that notion.

 

[StrixMaxima]

Interesting debate and opinions. But since we (as Lebowski would say, the "royal we") cannot even agree on what's art, I think this discussion is kinda moot.

Games, like arts, can be many things to many people. I think this is the one place they intersect. Anything else would require a massive semantics battle.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Games are art int he same way that movies are art. its a shield to hide behind (and a good one at that) but neither necessarily needs to be art.

 

[Princess Rose]

Nope, that's a flawed premise based on a severe misunderstanding of the Miller test.

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.

... ? I'm not talking about TV shows here. Porn IS protected as art. You can't go around showing it on TV or on movie theaters because it is ALSO obscene, but it's still art - just (typically) kind of crappy art.

The "miller test" isn't a law - it's a legal precedent. I don't see what it has to do with anything we're talking about here.

 

[zehydra]

Interesting debate and opinions. But since we (as Lebowski would say, the "royal we") cannot even agree on what's art, I think this discussion is kinda moot.

Games, like arts, can be many things to many people. I think this is the one place they intersect. Anything else would require a massive semantics battle.

The unfortunate thing about "art", is that it is empirically derived. We're taught at an early age that "this" is art, and "that" is art, but never exactly what it is. What I've tried to do is make a definition that unites them all by some common denominator, and I believe I have done so.

Anybody who says that "everything can be art" is wasting his/her time, because they are extending the definition to the point of it being useless. The purpose of the word is to differentiate art from non-art, so there must be something that isn't art.

 

[Worgen]

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.

Well, lets see, the wikipedia definition of art is
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
Sounds like a game can be art to me.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Nope, that's a flawed premise based on a severe misunderstanding of the Miller test.

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.

... ? I'm not talking about TV shows here. Porn IS protected as art. You can't go around showing it on TV or on movie theaters because it is ALSO obscene, but it's still art - just (typically) kind of crappy art.

The "miller test" isn't a law - it's a legal precedent. I don't see what it has to do with anything we're talking about here.

From your own post:

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.

Art as a class is not legally protected. The whole idea that it is comes from an incomplete understanding of the miller test, which looks at whether or not something has artistic merit. As for porn -- no, it's not protected as art. It gets by these days because community standards have shifted since the 70's, and because a lot of porn (particularly straight porn) has the excuse of being potentially educational for married couples. That's really it.

 

[StrixMaxima]

The unfortunate thing about "art", is that it is empirically derived. We're taught at an early age that "this" is art, and "that" is art, but never exactly what it is. What I've tried to do is make a definition that unites them all by some common denominator, and I believe I have done so.

Anybody who says that "everything can be art" is wasting his/her time, because they are extending the definition to the point of it being useless. The purpose of the word is to differentiate art from non-art, so there must be something that isn't art.

Well put, but the problem goes way deeper than that. Art, besides ephemeral, is completely culture-driven. And since culture changes so drastically by pretty much any factor we can think of, we tend to go knee-deep in a morass of definitions and counter-definitions that's rarely productive.

The only possibility for any definition of art, IMHO, is strictly personal and almost never interchangeable.

 

[42]

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.

No i think you're confusing art with what we call a good story. just because it explores morality choices and is quite philosophical in itself doesn't mean it's art. It's a story thats written to provoke such thoughts in both the characters and in the audience.

 

[Knobody13]

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

Cue several pages of strawman arguments.

In my humanities class we had a semester long paper on what is art. Every day at the end of class we would talk about it for 10 minutes or so. 80 classes later, I was ready to kill myself. Semantics arguments are the best and always lead to a satisfying resolution. Especially when your dealing with people that don't know the difference between connotation and denotation.

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

By the way, isn't it just a boss rush, mechanically speaking?

"Technically" speaking, no. You get to travel across the game lands. The game is essentially someone realising why do we need to hammer down the gamer with tonnes of unnecessary minions. You should play it for an hour. And if you honestly don't want to play it anymore, then don't. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

Games are rarely the vision of one person, more the vision of a team, unlike a painting or movie (by a control crazy director*). Games can be art, but that's more likely because it's from an indie developer, who probably made it himself, and then it can just come out seeming pretentious despite its charm (like Braid).

I still think people overestimate were video-games are. They haven't been around for as long as movies, so why do people think they can stand at their level? There's still work to be done to perfect whatever it is they are. And the games that have been considered art, (are like movies) the ones which have invented something new, broken new grounds, revolutionalised what it means to game. Like Half-Life or Deus Ex.

Games are also better as non-linear, whereas art-forms have for the past, been specifically linearly told.

And by non-linear I don't mean sandbox games, I mean games where at at-least one point you have the option of effecting two or more different responses. Where as no matter how many times you watch a movie the characters will still do the same things and say the same lines (unless it's the directors cut)

*the best kind of a director

 

[Knobody13]

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?

I could care less whether they are considered "art" as long as my first amendment rights protect them. I love video games, and I think Jerry Holkins has offered the best explanation for their preservation and respect ". . . the experiences that games create form the basis of a coherent culture - that the bank of shared experiences, simulated but no less real, coalesce into a collective memory."

I can walk down the street and talk to someone I have never met, but if this person has played Mass Effect we could talk for hours about our shared yet unique experiences with the game. Its not like a movie where everyone watches the same thing; in a game you live the experiences. The fear, love and hate are all just as real to me as many of my day to day experiences. And that's why I love gaming.

 

[Drakmeire]

SNIP

No i think you're confusing art with what we call a good story. just because it explores morality choices and is quite philosophical in itself doesn't mean it's art. It's a story thats written to provoke such thoughts in both the characters and in the audience.

But, the narrative is provided THROUGH the gameplay and not told or really shown directly to you since the game contains very few cutscenes save for the beginning and very end. most of the emotions are shown with the actions you the player commit. simply seeing a movie would not convey these actions so powerfully.

 

[42]

SNIP

No i think you're confusing art with what we call a good story. just because it explores morality choices and is quite philosophical in itself doesn't mean it's art. It's a story thats written to provoke such thoughts in both the characters and in the audience.

But, the narrative is provided THROUGH the gameplay and not told or really shown directly to you since the game contains very few cutscenes save for the beginning and very end. most of the emotions are shown with the actions you the player commit. simply seeing a movie would not convey these actions so powerfully.

Yes they would, and they do Movies always do this, if you're not being affected by a movie then you shouldn't be watching them. Again Videogames are made for the purpose of FUN, and they are a GAME. I'm not being completely single minded on the idea, as i do believe it's a good medium for exploration of story telling but that deosnt make it art. Art can have no other purpose then itself. but then again it also always depends on the veiwer's reaction to it. because that's how both movies and games act. If the person believes they just saw art good on em. if the person believes they were immersed in an awesome story all the better.

 

[beniki]

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.

Pretty much. Everything IS art. All people do is argue over the price tag.

Either way, your argument is flawed by saying that game mechanics aren't artistic. This is wrong. Just like a certain combination of words, lines or sounds can be deemed beautiful, a game mechanic which is designed to trick you into feeling something can also be beautiful.

It doesn't make it better or worse, just different.

Real art is all about the illusion. Paint makes pictures. Sounds make music. Words make poetry. Mechanics make games.

 

[loc978]

I only disagree with your definition of art, OP. I say that anything intended to be art, regardless of what else it may be, is art.

hold on a sec...

I just stacked a diagonal cutting tool on top of a notepad to make a display on my desk for a moment. That is art, and Mirriam-Webster agrees with me.

 

[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.

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?

More or less, yes.

 

[Valiance]

One of the bigger differences I think is that since games are interactive, they have a potential to be incredibly interactive.

For example, instead of being a song, a well designed game is more of an instrument. Perhaps the instrument itself is beautiful, but the player can create even more artistic expression within the environment. People create art within games. Music, paintings, a no-death high-score run of Ikaruga, building the Parthenon in Minecraft, whatever it is...Games are not just the expression, but they allow other people to be the expressionists.

It's as if you put out a song that can be modified and edited by everyone, mixed into whatever they wanted, using that original source material. Modders are artists by my definition, depending on what happens.