Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Thaius]

You have the quotes really off. If I ever caught myself trying to explain 'high art', I would hope someone troll'd me.

Holy crap you're right. Fixed.

Games matter so much that all this talk about art cheapens them and makes them seem more frivolous. Make no mistake, art is pretty god damn frivolous. By holding games up to foreign standards that have nothing to do with the long and rich tradition of games it just makes them seem like second rate artefacts, which they are not. I don't think that it matters if games are art because being a good game is already much more important to me. If art was more important to me then I would be hanging out on some art community site.

Interesting idea, but I would have to disagree. Art is not by nature frivolous; it is something vitally important to culture, the manifestation of human creativity and thought. It is only frivolous when misused, but it absolutely is not inherently frivolous, and is in fact vital to human society.

In actuality, video games are no longer restricted to being "games," and refusing to consider their existence as anything else would be holding them back. They are now full-blown experiences, capable of communicating a story that directly involves the player, thus increasing the impact and potential it could have as an artistic storytelling medium.

Why do we insist on saying we care more about a "good game" than about art? A good game is art; the two are inseparable. Trying to value quality over artistry makes no sense, like valuing taste over preparation of the meal; without one, the other is incomplete.

 

[Naota_391]

Video games are art.

I am not suggesting this.
I am not arguing this.
I am stating this.

Anyone who thinks games aren't or can't be is purposefully ignorant.

Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter is equally ignorant.
Or cynical.
Pick one.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

 

[Thaius]

I love the idea that games are thought of as art, and a beautiful thing made by people who care, and have a unique idea they only can relay in videogame form. I just don't see it as a reality.

Really? If you're talking about the majority, no art form is actually an art. Most people make most things for money, especially once a medium gets more mainstream recognition. What's important is that, as a medium, it has the potential for artistic value, and that there are people and works that reflect that. Video games definitely fit there.

 

[Thaius]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

Beyond that, you cannot tell me words have no power. Not only would that be easily disproven by pretty much any communication event in the history of mankind, but it's going against communication theory so basic it's understood in grade school. Language is the way we communicate and understand everything in our world; that "word used to define something" is a way with which we ascribe cultural importance to something, a way we determine what we should care about, and why. And beyond that, the concept the word represents is something vitally important to culture and society; the word may be just a word, but it is what we use to refer to an incredibly important concept. That cannot be belittled with any semblance of intelligent thought.

 

[Danzaivar]

Because in 200 years time it won't matter what the opnion of todays populace is. Every new thing is resisted by the first generations exposed to it. It's just a case of waiting it out.

 

[Stoogie]

Games are art, a medium of video, audio and pictures. But in reality anything can be art too.

Don't get me started on previous generations, you know your parents or nans that are generations behind who had less educational resources and less technology, as you would expect that they would repent something that they don't understand and then make biased opinions to feel superior over the new generations, but im sorry to say. with each new generation the majority will be smarter and learn more in a shorter amount of time.

so in otherwords, newer generations > older generations. the human race progresses, not the opposite.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

Beyond that, you cannot tell me words have no power. Not only would that be easily disproven by pretty much any communication event in the history of mankind, but it's going against communication theory so basic it's understood in grade school. Language is the way we communicate and understand everything in our world; that "word used to define something" is a way with which we ascribe cultural importance to something, a way we determine what we should care about, and why. And beyond that, the concept the word represents is something vitally important to culture and society; the word may be just a word, but it is what we use to refer to an incredibly important concept. That cannot be belittled with any semblance of intelligent thought.

I was just stating what I believed to be the reason why most gamers don't care about this issue. I can understand where your coming from though and I wish people would take things like this more seriously too, but that's just what I thought was the general reason people don't care about this.

 

[Johnwesleyharding]

This guy:

I love interactivity. What concerns me is that the "Games are Art" movement has tended to take away creativity and choice, turning the game into a movie or book; a series of cutscenes with gameplay reduced to being a sort of terribly inefficient DVD menu.

I feel that something is being lost in the push towards artistic recognition. Millions are spent on voice acting, on CGI, on ludicrously detailed environments. And yet, the plots get no better, the gameplay stagnates, and the corporate world seeks an ever-lower common denominator to pay for their endless splurging on art. Take a look at those credits sometime.

Broadly, art is something that is created by people that is intended to affect an audience in some way. It raises often very existential questions.
Films, video games, and books affect an audience by presenting a story or message, amongst several other things. The relationship is one-way. With video games, the relationship goes both ways. The audience has the ability to influence the art as it is observed. This adds another way of affecting the audience -- the interplay between the player and the game. The player does one thing, and the game reacts. --The game reacts and the player responds. That makes video-games a valuable and unique art-form for the expression of ideas.

Games heavy on cut-scenes do not take advantage of the potential for artistic expression in an interactive medium. The best argument for games as art hinges on games that are mostly interactive, as opposed to ones that try to mimic other art-forms (e.g. film and television).

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It doesn't matter because what qualifies as "art" is completely subjective. Therefore, there is no provably wrong or right answer. Let's say that I think games are art. And lets say Ebert thinks they aren't. But since art is subjective by nature, neither one of us is wrong. Therefore, we must conclude that the debate is pointless. It's like trying to convince someone that their favorite color is blue, when in fact it is red. You can talk about the benefits of the color blue for as long as you want, but at the end of the day, they'll still like red better.

Pretty much. It's a silly argument to even bring up. Games are made to be played so we can have fun and that's just what I'm going to do. I don't give a damn if it's "art" or not. As long as it entertains me.

 

[Keava]

Simply because i have no use for art in video games. I don't play them for the supposed 'artistic' merits, i play them for my own, selfish enjoyment and entertainment, pretty much the same reasons i watch silly TV series. If i want to expose myself to art (or as you prefer high art) i go to theatre, gallery, museum or any other place or resource that actually offers it.

I don't care whenever you or someone else considers ME or Halo an artistic interpretation of surreal reality issues that trouble modern societies on edge of globalization crisis. For me those are games that are supposed to bring fun.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Interesting idea, but I would have to disagree. Art is not by nature frivolous; it is something vitally important to culture, the manifestation of human creativity and thought. It is only frivolous when misused, but it absolutely is not inherently frivolous, and is in fact vital to human society.

There is a difference between "important to culture" and vital for humanity. Even with something like classing something as important to culture I have to ask how it is important and to whom. Game like experiences would rank near the top of things that countless people in the world would view as being as vital to their identity, throughout history.

In actuality, video games are no longer restricted to being "games," and refusing to consider their existence as anything else would be holding them back. They are now full-blown experiences, capable of communicating a story that directly involves the player, thus increasing the impact and potential it could have as an artistic storytelling medium.

Games have never been "just games" and that is a very dismissive way to view them. There has always been significance in them to the people who make and play them.

Why do we insist on saying we care more about a "good game" than about art? A good game is art; the two are inseparable. Trying to value quality over artistry makes no sense, like valuing taste over preparation of the meal; without one, the other is incomplete.

Games and art have been separated throughout history. In effect, this small war of language over video games is nothing less than people noisily insisting that certain traditions of narratives, not even art history as would be taught academically, are more important than the history of games. The real enemies of gaming traditions and the cultural significance therein are not the people who don't think that games are art but the people who say that games have to be called art in order to be significant.

 

[BeeRye]

snip

I would like you to describe to me how games would scour the soul in a way no other medium can. You say they could do it, and as using it as a point to establish games in art have put an onus on yourself to demonstrate how, otherwise they are merely empty words.

I don't personally understand how games can be art. If the story of the game is good enough to be art, then it is the story that is art. You could print the story and the gameplay would become irrelevant. If the visual presentation of the game is good enough to be art, then these visuals are art. Again gameplay is irrelevant. If the score is brilliant, you can remove it and listen to it, the game is irrelevant.

For a game to be art you have to show me an interaction between the player and the game that you can classify as art. The gameplay has to be art. Is pushing sequences of keys to cause reactions on the screen art? I've yet to see it.

 

[omega 616]

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact

How? As far as I know art plays no role in my life. I watch films the same way I play games, only my experience matters, I don't watch fight club or saw and admire it as art, I enjoy it 'cos it entertains me.

I still maintain my view that, I don't care if games are considered any form of art or not.

EDIT. Even art these days isn't art. It's pretentious crap so if I was to care if games were art or not I would prefer not.

I do not want games to be become pretentious drivel, while "art" critics ponder the meaning of why player is dressed in army boots and a pink dress (too much dead rising 2).

Edit number 2. In your OP you never put even one argument forward that we should care if games should be considered as art, just that we should care.

 

[Deleted]

Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.

For example: graphics, music, story.