Games AREN'T Art

[Chefodeath]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

Edit: People keep bringing up games like minecraft as an example of a 'game' that doesn't have a definitegoal of winning or losing connected to it. This is PRECISELY the example I would point to to say that games could evolve into something that is art. They won't be games at this point anymore. As far as minecraft itself goes, I'm not sure I would call it art. More like a tool of art. Would you call a paintbrush art?

Edit 2: People keep bringing up the amount of artistic materials like music, voice acting etc. used in games. I don't think this makes the game itself art though. If you see a political campaign which has various drawings being used to further its agenda, would you call that art? The drawings might be artistic, but their purpose is just to illustrate some political slogan or end.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Art is subjective.

I don't see Jackson Pollock's work as art.

Yet, he's known as a famous artist.

So I guess what I'm saying is "I disagree, but I'm not about to try to change your mind."

 

[Macgyvercas]

Tell me, you have artists for the backgrounds (art), musicians for the soundtrack (art), voice actors for the characters (art), programers to make the cinematics (art), and grapic designers for the cover art and additional art work (art).

All these things come together that make...not art?

I. Fucking. Call. FOUL.

 

[Thamous]

Why does it matter if they're art?
I feel like gamers as a whole are so dead set on getting their favorite passed time classified and accepted as an "art" so they can justify their enjoyment of it.
Why? Stop giving a shit what other people think and just enjoy what you enjoy.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So if a game is not goal oriented then its art?

...

Once again we come to games like Minecraft being art.

 

[Hal10k]

Webster's says that art is anything that is the result of a creative effort. Going by that definition, games are art. Ergo, if games aren't art, Webster's is invalidated and "Aardvark" is now a synonym for "lightbulb".

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

So you're basically repeating what Roger Ebert said a year ago?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

In that case, you might as well call every sandbox RPG ever made, including Oblivion, art. Well, there's no real goal in that game except the ones you set for yourself: finish the story quest, finish every sidequest, max out your skill sheet, or find one of every killable thing in the game to teabag. And there's so much stuff there, you could keep doing that and staring at the pretty pictures the game blasts through your screen for a very long time. I've never played Oblivion, but that's just my two cents.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Cool opinion bro. Aren't games a combination of drawings, music, and in a way cinema all individually classified as art?

 

[Atticus89]

So, by your argument, since games can't be art because they are games then the only thing that can truly be art is art. This then begs the question of what is art and how one defines it.

 

[mateushac]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win.

Actually i've once stumbled upon a game in which your goal was to lose


OT: Games CAN be art, that doesn't mean they always are. Don't tell me pong was art, or wii sports or madden, or tetris, you know...

 

[Creator002]

Webster's says that art is anything that is the result of a creative effort. Going by that definition, games are art. Ergo, if games aren't art, Webster's is invalidated and "Aardvark" is now a synonym for "lightbulb".

Awesome. I have 3 energy-saving Aardvarks in my lounge. (That really makes me want to laugh like a maniac.)

As someone said above, art is subjective. If you consider something to be art, it's art to you. Who is anyone to tell anyone what art is?
Except Webster, of course, gracious Quotee.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

How does one "win" Mincraft or "win" say Oblivion, a game with no actual end. And you make it sound like goals/win/loose are the point of games, do you really play Halo or COD to see the end credits or to know that you won? Last I checked no....

Art is created to express ideas or more often than not, a representation of the artists skill using their selection of tools. Simple high detail portaits for example have no meaning or ideas behind them, they are simply expressions of skill. Things like music are a combination of ideas(peace,anger etc) and skill. Quite a lot of surreal art and art from an artist whos name I forgot are primarily works of ideas, not skill or detail.

You go through Bioshock and tell me there arent some pretty heavy ideas their (see Ayn Rands, Atlas Shrugged). Go through Crysis or Bastion and you can see the use of skill there. Your idea of what Art is is I think slightly skewed in favor of what already exists, not why we consider what already exists to be art in the first place.

 

[Officer Crayon]

Don't feed the trolls

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

You know...I honestly don't know what you're expecting by making a thread out of your very close ended opinion. (I'm not entirely sure whether I'm supposed to use "closed ended" or "close ended". If someone could please show me the proper way that would be fantastic.) I'm tired of these types of threads and believe that you should receive a warning because this thread has absolutely no discussion value at all.

We can all either agree to you and worship you as the messiah who hath delivered unto the people the one and only one right opinion from the mind of God herself.

OR

We can waste our time pointlessly trying and failing to change your opinion on something that you apparently feel really strongly about. (So damn strongly you believe that it was worth making a thread about your bloody opinion.)

Either way there is no discussion to be found here.

Also, if you only wanted to share your opinion on the concept of games as art and such, you could have done a simple forum search and found a good amount of other threads that have already brought up the subject.

Don't take this post as a personal attack on you. I have nothing against you as a fellow human being, I just don't like your post. It strikes me as something belonging in another thread, not as the opening post to a new thread.

Of course that's just my opinion.

OT: I would have to disagree, and I believe that games can be art as well as "proper" games. That is all.

 

[Sandernista]

Tell me, you have artists for the backgrounds (art), musicians for the soundtrack (art), voice actors for the characters (art), programers to make the cinematics (art), and grapic designers for the cover art and additional art work (art).

All these things come together that make...not art?

I. Fucking. Call. FOUL.

Said better, and faster, than I could.

 

[Berenzen]

The idea of 'winning' at a game is essentially non-existant anymore. Sure, there are a few games that have various scoreboards in their multiplayer facets. However, most games are told as a story that the audience takes part of. Rather than piggybacking onto the protagonists like movies and books do, a video game- or lets call them interactive experiences as that is really what they are now- makes the audience become the protagonist for the time that he or she interacts with the media. If the game happens to be an RPG or have RPG elements, then it is the audiences choices that have a major impact on the story.

Yes, games like Angry Birds are probably not an art in your own definition. With both indie and AAA games you have a plot arc that starts climaxes then concludes, and you never really 'lose' if you die, then you just reload from the last saved point and try to continue on with the story line. You don't start over, and there is an end point, unlike many arcade games of the past.

 

[zehydra]

"Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win."

incorrect, the purpose of games is to have fun. They exist to create an emotional response in the experiencer, and if that is not by definition art, then I don't know what is.