Games AREN'T Art
- Thread starter Chefodeath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Art doesn't have a proper meaning, and your not going to convince anyone either (especially quoting Roger Ebert), the only people who agree are the ones who already had the same opinion.
I believe anything that can entertain and/or move people is art. The quality of that art is a whole other thing though.
I believe anything that can entertain and/or move people is art. The quality of that art is a whole other thing though.
Music is a art is it not? Some of the game sound tracks are pure fantastic artistic masterpieces.
Maybe a game overall you will not call art but the parts of the game that come to make the hole can be fantastic in the way of art. Not gonna try and change your mind, That because it has a goal thing and then it means it cant be art because it has a goal logicly is just wrong to me, Almost all art has a goal in mind during creation, maybe to show the side people do not see or just for profit (you cant tell me no art was ever made that was just made for the money) everyone is entitled to a opinion but never will everyone agree to it
Maybe a game overall you will not call art but the parts of the game that come to make the hole can be fantastic in the way of art. Not gonna try and change your mind, That because it has a goal thing and then it means it cant be art because it has a goal logicly is just wrong to me, Almost all art has a goal in mind during creation, maybe to show the side people do not see or just for profit (you cant tell me no art was ever made that was just made for the money) everyone is entitled to a opinion but never will everyone agree to it
You're looking at the wrong perspective. From the player's perspective, yes, the goal may be to win. But the creator of the game, sprung the idea from his creativity. Art is anything that is born from creativity. The question of how good the art is, that's something else.
Art isn't about the one who perceives it, it's about the one who creates it.
Art isn't about the one who perceives it, it's about the one who creates it.
What about story driven games where the purpose of the gameplay mechanic is nothing more than a means to advance to the next part of the story?Chefodeath said:
Cut scene heavy RPGs spring to mind.
Yes, the ultimate goal is to finish the game. But that's not "winning", it's more about finishing the story isn't it?
Do you realize how bloody competitive the world of art is? How much these people must strive to get their work recognized? So no, nobody will say I won the art competition at the EXHIBITION/GALLERY (museum? seriously?).
They'll say things like "my work has been recognized X gallery and I've received a grant to do whatever"
Translated to "our game has been successful and a publisher wants to invest some money in our IP"
Finally, the fact that you've also added 2 "Edits" kind of suggests you've seen several holes in your opinion.
The games themselves are art, playing them is not. Art is meant to be anything that is designed creatively and games certainly fall into that. The level design, voice acting, storyline, all of that stuff is what makes them art. Someone playing the game isn't art, that's entertainment. Sort of think of it like a live performance. The music the artists are playing is art and the stage show they put on but the crowds interaction with that performance isn't. That probably doesn't make any sense does it.
"Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose."
And I don't find just winning something the entire fun of a game. Experiencing the game as a whole is what appeals to me, finishing a game makes me kind of peeved sometimes since there isn't any more for me to experience. Also the graphics of the game appeal to me, if I was playing a game such as that crap ET game I wouldn't give a damn if I won or lost, I'd not enjoy it because I wouldn't be able to comprehend what was actually supposed to be on my screen.
I actually hate it when I play online against people who find it fun just to WIN something no matter what - be it choosing the easiest or spammiest class in a shooter or rpg, or even cheating completely. It takes the fun out of the game if you can't have a good experience. When I played Crysis 2 I chose the worst perks and weapons I could just to have a bigger challenge (I stopped playing when everyone decided to use either the Jackal or the Feline -___-).
And I don't find just winning something the entire fun of a game. Experiencing the game as a whole is what appeals to me, finishing a game makes me kind of peeved sometimes since there isn't any more for me to experience. Also the graphics of the game appeal to me, if I was playing a game such as that crap ET game I wouldn't give a damn if I won or lost, I'd not enjoy it because I wouldn't be able to comprehend what was actually supposed to be on my screen.
I actually hate it when I play online against people who find it fun just to WIN something no matter what - be it choosing the easiest or spammiest class in a shooter or rpg, or even cheating completely. It takes the fun out of the game if you can't have a good experience. When I played Crysis 2 I chose the worst perks and weapons I could just to have a bigger challenge (I stopped playing when everyone decided to use either the Jackal or the Feline -___-).
My cynical self says someone is going for a badge or to. Also, this thread seems to have /threaded a while back. I think we're done here people.
Well before this thing ends, I would just like to throw this last opinion here.
In a sense, games are absolutely art. Granted there are some that are simple,hardly any story at all, and have gameplay that an untrained monkey could learn. But aside from that, you have to remember that each game despite the simplicity, is made with just as much intricacy, meticulously, and precisely as any painting that you would see at the MoMA. It just has to be seen through the right eyes. If you're one of those people that looks at the game as a whole, and only sees it as a game to entertain the simple minded, then I would say that you live an empty life. But if you see that each detail of whatever game you're playing has been made with care, and by extremely skilled hands, then you can see the beauty of it. My boyfriend has a degree in animation, but all the time he works on his ability to animate characters. Granted I've only seen a couple of his animations, but once you see that when you get a person motivated enough, they can accomplish amazing things.
And so with all that said, Video games are absolutely considered art. By way of seeing that it takes talent to pull every single piece that makes a game, a game; story, animation, character design, etc, can make a masterpiece just as amazing as the Mona Lisa.
In a sense, games are absolutely art. Granted there are some that are simple,hardly any story at all, and have gameplay that an untrained monkey could learn. But aside from that, you have to remember that each game despite the simplicity, is made with just as much intricacy, meticulously, and precisely as any painting that you would see at the MoMA. It just has to be seen through the right eyes. If you're one of those people that looks at the game as a whole, and only sees it as a game to entertain the simple minded, then I would say that you live an empty life. But if you see that each detail of whatever game you're playing has been made with care, and by extremely skilled hands, then you can see the beauty of it. My boyfriend has a degree in animation, but all the time he works on his ability to animate characters. Granted I've only seen a couple of his animations, but once you see that when you get a person motivated enough, they can accomplish amazing things.
And so with all that said, Video games are absolutely considered art. By way of seeing that it takes talent to pull every single piece that makes a game, a game; story, animation, character design, etc, can make a masterpiece just as amazing as the Mona Lisa.
Games are not art because in many you can win?
So if I create a picture or act in a play as part of a competition, these things are no longer art? Is "Self portrait Janus faced" no longer a artwork because the creator wanted to win (and did) the Archibald Prize?
There can be win conditions, so what? A game can be or not be art just as a book or movie. To say that all are or are not is foolish. If you accept the phrasing "movies are art" or pictures, or whatever, then you must accept "games are art" because it is equaly true.
So if I create a picture or act in a play as part of a competition, these things are no longer art? Is "Self portrait Janus faced" no longer a artwork because the creator wanted to win (and did) the Archibald Prize?
There can be win conditions, so what? A game can be or not be art just as a book or movie. To say that all are or are not is foolish. If you accept the phrasing "movies are art" or pictures, or whatever, then you must accept "games are art" because it is equaly true.
I completely agree with you. Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.
I think nearly everyone here has missed a trick. Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could, but to call them art implies that they are not games. Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.
Well done OP, for choosing to discuss something most would disagree with and defend games and not art.
I think nearly everyone here has missed a trick. Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could, but to call them art implies that they are not games. Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.
Well done OP, for choosing to discuss something most would disagree with and defend games and not art.
Games are definitely art. Games are an art form in the same sense that film, television, music, and literature, are. I'm not just talking about those so called "Indie" games either, even AAA action titles like "Gears of War" are still art, the same way that action movies like "Die Hard" are still art.
In addition, I think Thamous brings up an interesting question.
In addition, I think Thamous brings up an interesting question.
One of the major reasons for getting games classified as an art form is to try and keep people from trying to Jack Thompson the damn things. If games are considered a legitimate art form, they will be subject to more legal protection, and we may even see indie developers being funded by some of the many grants dedicated to the arts.Thamous said:
I dont consider Modern art to be true art so much as someone making a mess on expensive paper.ZeroMachine said:
Who fucking cares if anybody says that something isn't art? It's subjective. Some 4 year old kid did a bunch of paint splotches on a piece of paper and she's being heralded as a great artist. Idiots will find any excuse to call something art so they can feel sophisticated. I'm impressed by people displaying talent to draw or create something that's visually stunning, not somebody taking all their clothes off and rolling around on a canvas covered in paint then selling it to a museum.
Let's not and say that we did.Chefodeath said:
Define "games" and "art" first, then we'll talk.