Games AREN'T Art

[Chefodeath]

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.

Wow, what a passive-aggressive post. If you didn't like the thread, why did you even bother posting?

The entire point of this thread is to facilitate discussion. I neither expect people to bow down and worship me or to mindlessly object. I would hope to provoke some thoughtful insight. I didn't resurrect an old one because I felt like putting my opinion to the forefront to be judged.

 

[Chefodeath]

There is nothing in the definition of Art that says that a game cannot be Art.

Art is defined as such.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are Videogames the expression of human creative skill and imagination? Check, thus videogames are art.

Games aren't to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power though. They are to be appreciated primarily as games, as a closed system with rules that you try to win at.

And if all expressions of human imagination and creative skill are art, then there wouldn't be a point in having a word to delegate art from other creative endeavors. This post is spawned from human creativity and imagination to some extent, does that make it art?

In a way your post is a work of art literature is an artform after all. The point behind this is that art is a very broad term and games sit comfortably within that term.

Ya, and my point is that definition is useless. If all elements of human endeavor can be classified as art, why have the term at all? When I create a piece of art, I want to create something specific, more than just a simple act of conversation.

 

[NedroidPrime]

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.

I actually did an extensive paper on this argument in college...

The flaw with your argument is that movies are considered art today, yet when it was first introduced, it was seen much as video games are seen today; a technical toy for wasting time. It took about 20 years for film to start being seen as an art, and it took some visionary directors to make this happen through sheer passion and talent.

Same thing with recorded music. Seen initially as a nifty gadget, it became a vibrant art. Pink Floyd is a perfect example of this, but even earlier you could look at Louis Armstrong, or Billie Holiday. Even almost 100 years later, those songs are still relevant, and still stir emotion.

Granted, there are many games that couldn't be considered "art" because they suck. But with games there is the additional dimension of game play to evaluate. Look at the Batman: Arkham games as an example of this. What they have done with the battle system is so well conceived and executed, it can easily be considered art.

Just look at the definition of "art", and you see that your argument falls to pieces. "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"

 

[Sean Steele]

Well sorry what you want art to be and what it is are clearly in conflict.

 

[nokori3byo]

Personally, I don't think the win/lose dichotomy has a place in art.

No? Ever hear of a little thing called "The Art of War"? How about "martial arts"? Art works themselves are routinely given awards that designate them as more worthy than other works in the same medium. Elsewhere, artists compete for grant money to keep their careers alive. Western dramatic art as we know it began with hotly contested competitions between the tragic poets at the Festival of Dionysis in Athens and when a major player like Eurypides failed to win, it was big news. In medieval Iceland, competitions between bards reciting satirical poetry were sometimes used to settle otherwise bloody feuds between rival families. Lastly, the zero sum game of public debate is both a clear derivative of rhetorical art and a major determining factor in world history.

The idea of winning is in no way alien to art.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Michael Bay movies and shitty knock-offs like Snakes on a Train are technically art, because film is an accepted art form. If that shit's art, games damn well better be.

 

[Tselis]

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".

I agree with this logic. ^^

 

[loc978]

Sorry, but there is a concrete definition for art in this context. It is as follows:

4a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1317616719]

So yes, even ET for the Atari 2600 is art (even if you merely count the physical cartridge). Whether or not art is good, bad, popular or unknown has no bearing on defining it as art.

**edit**
*looks up*
hmm... ninja'd, sort of...

 

[Sean951]

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.

It's not to justify what we enjoy, it's to protect what we enjoy and guarantee that they enjoy the freedom of speech other forms of art enjoy.

 

[kouriichi]

"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."

By definition, videogames are art.
Besides, no painting has ever made me cry. When Aerith was killed in FF7, i was shocked, sad and almost teared up.

No painting has ever made me stand and cheer like i did in Jade Empire when

Spoiler

You could enslave your team by binding their souls to their bodies so they had to follow your every command till the day you die. I mean, come on! How friggan awesome was that decision!?!?

Videogames are more art then entertainment. Look at all the artists it takes to produce a single game. Graphic designers, script writers, musicians! And thats just the tip of the iceberg!

The purpose of art is to invoke emotions. The simple fact people are willing to defend videogames with such passion even proves that point!

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Which is silly, because we have other art with direction.

It does seem to be the gist here, though. The "Games Aren't Art" argument has always struck me as similar to a line from a George Carlin routine, where he discounts gymnastics as a sport because it's "something Romanians are good at."

Except, being George Carlin, it was a joke.

This is like saying "Music isn't art because you can also dance to it."

Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

Funny, I "Won" at All-State in the local Jazz Band at my High School. Well, we won. It's hard to say "I" when it was a team effort. There were also choiral groups, orchestral groups, jazz singers, and so on and so forth.

In fact, there are a lot of ways art can be competitive. Especially since a lot of art can be performed. It's a little harder to justify "winning" at painting, but not all art has to meet every criteria for it to be valid.

And honestly, I don't mind retreading an old topic if there's new thought, but this is pretty much old thought with an arbitrary exclusion.

 

[loc978]

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.

It's not to justify what we enjoy, it's to protect what we enjoy and guarantee that they enjoy the freedom of speech other forms of art enjoy.

Maybe I'm just hung up on semantics here, but that's a completely different issue, at least according to the wording of the opening post here.

"Art" as defined within the English language is very different from "protected art forms" as defined by law in any given place. It may be that's what the OP was referring to, but if so, their post was poorly worded.

 

[maxmanrules]

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.

Seconded! Bravo good sir!

 

[FrankWilliams]

I almost agree with some of the stuff you say. Minecraft is more of a tool to make art not art itself. As for games being made of art, well boardgames often are made of art, but not considered art. My monoploy board has a picture on it (art) but is just a game.

However, as a counterpoint, many chess games are made to be art. I seen a shiny chessboard/pieces set out as a display. So there's an example of a game being art. Why can't videogames be art?

Not that it matters, since art is in the eye of the beholder and if you screw with a beholder they will hit you with disintegrate.

Not related: An easy way to win minecraft. Dig down three blocks, place one above your head. I would call that winning, but readily admit it is boring and pointless.

 

[Chefodeath]

Personally, I don't think the win/lose dichotomy has a place in art.

No? Ever hear of a little thing called "The Art of War"? How about "martial arts"? Art works themselves are routinely given awards that designate them as more worthy than other works in the same medium. Elsewhere, artists compete for grant money to keep their careers alive. Western dramatic art as we know it began with hotly contested competitions between the tragic poets at the Festival of Dionysis in Athens and when a major player like Eurypides failed to win, it was big news. In medieval Iceland, competitions between bards reciting satirical poetry were sometimes used to settle otherwise bloody feuds between rival families. Lastly, the zero sum game of public debate is both a clear derivative of rhetorical art and a major determining factor in world history.

The idea of winning is in no way alien to art.

That's a sophomoric mistake. When the word art is used in the context of the martial arts or the art of war, it uses the word in a older sense, more like a craft.

As far as the contests concerning art are considered, those are measures of the artist's skills to make an appealing piece of art. They do not infest the actual medium.

 

[Keslen]

Games AREN'T Art

All right. If you say so.

 

[the spud]

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.

...So? Music is art, too. "I listened to some art today" is an equally bizarre statement. And just because we play games doesn't mean they can't be art. Often what you are considering to be the "game" part of the game is just another means for the artist to tell his story. Also, don't most "games are art" debates generally just boil down to definitions? By my definition, an art is just something that a crafter creates. All paintings are art, all films are art, all music is art, and all games are art. It's just that some of it is high art, and some of it is low art.

So if art is something a crafter creates, what does that make a thoughtless scribbling or a door latch? When I make my bed, is that art? Hell, even factory machines could be considered crafters, does that make the plastic products they soullessly turn out in droves art?

Allow me to clarify. I probably could have worded that better. I said that all these "games are art" debates generally just boil down to definitions. What "art" generally came to be defined as was something that a creator creates that appeals to the senses. That definition came about sometime in the 1500s or so, and before that and "artist" was just a person who had a skill. In that way, all things created by a creator or creators that appeal to the senses are art. It is just that some of it is good art, while some of it is bad. Transformers 2 is art just the same as Citizen Kane, it is just that Citizen Kane is high art, while Transformers 2 is low art. Lets try to apply this to video games.

Chrono Trigger=High art

Portal=High art

Ninjabread Man=Low art

Sorry about the confusion.

 

[r0kle0nZ]

All Art is subjective, so in my own opinion what you call art could not be art. What I call art could not be art, yet everyone fights about it.

So in theory, sit down, shut up, and enjoy the show.

Oh and my Opinion, whatever MIGHT be considered art is Art, because it will mean something to someone in some way shape or form. No one can dictate what is and what isn't. Just not how it's supposed to be.