How about this?easternflame said:
I can take a giant crap and call it art. That doesn't mean it's not shit
Translation? Anything can be art. Anything.
Games are not art. They are something more. Something better.
- Thread starter easternflame
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can take a giant crap and call it art. That doesn't mean it's not shit
Translation? Anything can be art. Anything.
I wrote my honors dissertation with the foundation of my argument being that games were art. I argued passionately for it and firmly believed it when I began writing. I passed with an A-, but throughout the course of writing it, and ever since, I have come to believe that games are not art. And it doesn't bother me a bit. I still play games and love them, but they are not art.easternflame said:
Yeah, this topic never goes anywhere.CkretAznMan said:
Also, convincing people over the net is usually liking talking to a brick wall.
Since there is no exact definition of art, I save time by just saying anything that can entertain is art. Now what is good and bad quality is a completely different ball game, and one that is probably too hard to describe for 99% of everyone on the net. So basically, your gonna fail it.
Thats his point, everything IS art, but culturally, we deem things to be dignified as art and what people see as art. Mona Lisa, culturally, is deemed as art, of course, I can say its NOT art. You basically posted a thread that was meaningless because its only your opinion at play on something that EVERYONE sees differently.easternflame said:
This thread just ain't going to get much far into a discussion because of the way your pointed things out.
Games are art, their not exactly better until certain things are at play, at my point.
Culturally games are not art because they don't dig deep enough into more human problems.
Games are art to me when immersion is at play.
Right I probably should respond to this as I work in the cultural sector, though that does not make anything I say any more valid. Just saying it is an interest of mine.
As has already been alluded to a number of times in this discussion the definition of art is so broad that anything can be described as art, conversely anything can be described as not art depending on where the individual draws their own lines on the definition of art (but thats a huge discussion itself).
Also its worth noting that games are not the only form of art that has interaction, but it is the only form the requires it. If you go to any contemporary art gallery there is likely to be a number of installation of pieces that require the audience to interact with a piece, whether it be writing on it, pushing a button and moving parts around (all things I've seen and done in a gallery). Indeed the most famous example I can think of is Yoko Ono's, ?Cut Piece? performance, where members of the audience were invited to cut off parts of her dress. This is considered art and would go against the OP's point that the interaction of games means they're not art.
Though the point that we don't need it to be art is a very interesting one. In essence we don't, we all enjoy games in the many fashions games take without really thinking 'is this art or not?'. As players if a game is considered art or not is not greatly important to many of us, we just play. However, there is a further level to this, imagine if Arts Councils did list games as arts and actually used their funds to support game developers to make art, I wonder what type of game we could get there. Would they be different, would the relationship change between gamer and developer change? Perhaps this is the conversation for another time. The point here is that we may not need games to be art, but I wonder what forms games would take if it was considered and art form by those who are responsible for funding the arts.
Lastly I'd like to address this issue of judging, the OP says that games are not art as they cannot be judged as art. This I would disagree with. Not being able to judge games the same way we judge films or say music is true, but then we cannot judge music the say we judge film. They are all their own artforms and with that comes their own system to judge and criteria to critique. Try picking up a classical music review or any commentary on classical music, I'm lost within seconds. I'd not be so lost on a judgement on contemporary art, something I'm more familiar with due to some understanding of the artform. Where I feel games are different is that as an artform games are yet to really establish how to judge games as art. Due to the relative youth of the artform we, as in the wider community, are still struggling to find our feet in terms of how to critique the artform we all participate in and enjoy.
Ok really could flesh out some of those points but its already long enough for a forum post.
As has already been alluded to a number of times in this discussion the definition of art is so broad that anything can be described as art, conversely anything can be described as not art depending on where the individual draws their own lines on the definition of art (but thats a huge discussion itself).
Also its worth noting that games are not the only form of art that has interaction, but it is the only form the requires it. If you go to any contemporary art gallery there is likely to be a number of installation of pieces that require the audience to interact with a piece, whether it be writing on it, pushing a button and moving parts around (all things I've seen and done in a gallery). Indeed the most famous example I can think of is Yoko Ono's, ?Cut Piece? performance, where members of the audience were invited to cut off parts of her dress. This is considered art and would go against the OP's point that the interaction of games means they're not art.
Though the point that we don't need it to be art is a very interesting one. In essence we don't, we all enjoy games in the many fashions games take without really thinking 'is this art or not?'. As players if a game is considered art or not is not greatly important to many of us, we just play. However, there is a further level to this, imagine if Arts Councils did list games as arts and actually used their funds to support game developers to make art, I wonder what type of game we could get there. Would they be different, would the relationship change between gamer and developer change? Perhaps this is the conversation for another time. The point here is that we may not need games to be art, but I wonder what forms games would take if it was considered and art form by those who are responsible for funding the arts.
Lastly I'd like to address this issue of judging, the OP says that games are not art as they cannot be judged as art. This I would disagree with. Not being able to judge games the same way we judge films or say music is true, but then we cannot judge music the say we judge film. They are all their own artforms and with that comes their own system to judge and criteria to critique. Try picking up a classical music review or any commentary on classical music, I'm lost within seconds. I'd not be so lost on a judgement on contemporary art, something I'm more familiar with due to some understanding of the artform. Where I feel games are different is that as an artform games are yet to really establish how to judge games as art. Due to the relative youth of the artform we, as in the wider community, are still struggling to find our feet in terms of how to critique the artform we all participate in and enjoy.
Ok really could flesh out some of those points but its already long enough for a forum post.
lol, how do we define something as "better" than art, when we have enough trouble defining what is art?
How can something BE better than art, when plenty of people CALL it art?
Games are not "better" than the whole of collected art throughout history. They are not better than Francisco de Goya's paintings, or Chaucer's writing, or the tale of Job, or the Mona Lisa, or Peter Paul Ruben's fat chicks. First off, they aren't "better" than them, in large part because games would not exist without the inspirations of art. Look EVERYWHERE in games and you'll find influences from paintings, drawings, poems, literature and songs. The whole IDEA of soundtracks in games? You can thank "art" and artists for developing music and popularizing it in culture.
You say "art" doesn't directly involve the audience? HAH, Chinese Scholar's garden. Look it up. Even a lot of literature has elements that are deliberately placed to be interpreted/read between the lines. Audience participation is often encouraged.
Anyway, long story short, your opinion is entirely subjective, with no supporting evidence, and you're defining what words mean in a way that suits you. Video games are not better than art, they are interactive electronic games which incorporate "art" (music, visuals, vocal performance, acting) and artistic elements (which I define subjectively, as art usually is) to entertain. They just are what they are. That should be enough.
How can something BE better than art, when plenty of people CALL it art?
Games are not "better" than the whole of collected art throughout history. They are not better than Francisco de Goya's paintings, or Chaucer's writing, or the tale of Job, or the Mona Lisa, or Peter Paul Ruben's fat chicks. First off, they aren't "better" than them, in large part because games would not exist without the inspirations of art. Look EVERYWHERE in games and you'll find influences from paintings, drawings, poems, literature and songs. The whole IDEA of soundtracks in games? You can thank "art" and artists for developing music and popularizing it in culture.
You say "art" doesn't directly involve the audience? HAH, Chinese Scholar's garden. Look it up. Even a lot of literature has elements that are deliberately placed to be interpreted/read between the lines. Audience participation is often encouraged.
Anyway, long story short, your opinion is entirely subjective, with no supporting evidence, and you're defining what words mean in a way that suits you. Video games are not better than art, they are interactive electronic games which incorporate "art" (music, visuals, vocal performance, acting) and artistic elements (which I define subjectively, as art usually is) to entertain. They just are what they are. That should be enough.
I somewhat agree, but maybe some day they could be. Games like Shadow of the Colossus (sigh, always gets a mention), Lumines and REZ push into some interesting areas. They seem to have themes and emotions they invoke which go beyond merely entertainment.floppylobster said:
Seriously? I'm not surprised that this thread is just going around in circles, "art" as well as "beauty" and suchlike are subjective concepts which have a subjective utility. I find the macabre beautiful and I can appreciate the emotional power of fear, in this regard Lovecraft is just as much an artist as Team Silent.
ANYONE can disagree with me because some people might find that taxidermy is not art when I can equally argue that it is. Technically we're both right in our own ways, but that's only because it all really comes down to personal taste.
ANYONE can disagree with me because some people might find that taxidermy is not art when I can equally argue that it is. Technically we're both right in our own ways, but that's only because it all really comes down to personal taste.
Since games are conglomerates of ideas and have a technical part to them as well. Id prefer it if people didnt declare a game art, but key parts of it. Like the character designs are art but the physics engine isnt.
Funny that. I asked a professional artist if something that took certain knowledge or training to appreciate it could be art, he answered 'yes.'Fieldy409 said:
I then asked him if he thought that programming code could be art and he said that it could be.
I think games are art, but not in the way that other forms of art are.
I never even understood what the problem is here.
Look, if tomorrow every gamer unanimously decided that all games are art, some are just bad art the world would be a better place for everyone.
I just don't see why something has to be especially great art to be classified as art. It's all art, some of it's just bad okay?
It's just a fucking word!
In my opinion all games that have a single character model or a single level or a single opponent or single line of written dialogue that isn't crap is art. Therefore all games are art. Some are just bad art.
Look, if tomorrow every gamer unanimously decided that all games are art, some are just bad art the world would be a better place for everyone.
I just don't see why something has to be especially great art to be classified as art. It's all art, some of it's just bad okay?
It's just a fucking word!
In my opinion all games that have a single character model or a single level or a single opponent or single line of written dialogue that isn't crap is art. Therefore all games are art. Some are just bad art.
Some gamers worry about the perception of the medium as an art form when we live in an age where most devs and publishers have forgotten how to make a game fun.
Art for arts sake is irratating, makes something entertaining and artful then I'm interested ala Braid or Shadow of the Colossus.
But if I had to choose between Art and Fun in a game, give me fun, give me Super Meat Boy, Serious Sam and Just Cause 2
Art for arts sake is irratating, makes something entertaining and artful then I'm interested ala Braid or Shadow of the Colossus.
But if I had to choose between Art and Fun in a game, give me fun, give me Super Meat Boy, Serious Sam and Just Cause 2
to me art is a higher form of expression.
which i feel games do to a varying degree.
but i cannot begin the fathom how stupid you are mister easternflame for saying "Art is purely aesthetic". aside from beauty being subjective its like you never saw a Picasso, listened to the sexpistols, read a post modern novel or for that matter experienced any art which spat idefiantly at beauty's expansive face in search of truth.
i agree that there is something inherently otherly in games but they are art, they like all expression search for truth or a truth or some tangible thread to afirm human meaning.
i just hate that you trashed some of the best of art(yeah you pretty much said everything prior to games are shallow) to get to a glaringly obvious place "games are different".
(also all art is mechanical in some way)
which i feel games do to a varying degree.
but i cannot begin the fathom how stupid you are mister easternflame for saying "Art is purely aesthetic". aside from beauty being subjective its like you never saw a Picasso, listened to the sexpistols, read a post modern novel or for that matter experienced any art which spat idefiantly at beauty's expansive face in search of truth.
i agree that there is something inherently otherly in games but they are art, they like all expression search for truth or a truth or some tangible thread to afirm human meaning.
i just hate that you trashed some of the best of art(yeah you pretty much said everything prior to games are shallow) to get to a glaringly obvious place "games are different".
(also all art is mechanical in some way)
I think I would like to adress that art is something moe point. I agree with this in a way. it has combined all previous artforms (graphics= visual, soundtrack= audio, story= literature). not only that, it has in a way combined the interactive gameplay, with the other aart forms into something more than the base three fine art. Yes it is art but it is more than Just art.
That's a thoughtful argument.easternflame said:
But your argument is based on saying that art is pasta, which it isn't. It's based on an arbitrary call, and one that happens to be wrong. Cooking, making love, writing and performing music, producing and directing a film or a TV show, making another person laugh, writing a novel or a short story or critiquing one's society - these are all forms of art. Creativity is involved, in many ways on a level that ultimately trumps science, and the end result is something that is judged, if I may be forgiven for being cliche, in the eye of the beholder and not beholden to scientific method. This is what defines something as art. All of the above is true of games. A challenge is designed, a story added, presentation (showmanship) strongly considered. Ideas are knocked down. Pitches fail. Things get put on the backburner or borrowed from other ideas that never become games. Artists and designers collaborate(this happens every day in songwriting). People complain, quite justifiably, that the suits are commodifying their art.