Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Thaius]

I know the "games as art" debate has gotten rather old and tired among gamers lately (though considering its importance, I really don't know why), so this is not about that. Rather, this is about a certain attitude toward the concept that I find rather troubling: some people think it simply doesn't matter.

I've seen far too many people say that as long as the game is fun, they don't care if it's art or not. I've also seen people say that as long as they enjoy their games, artistic or not, they don't care if the medium is culturally accepted as art. Is it just me, or is this nothing short of near-sighted selfishness?

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact. So why, when we have the ability to move storytelling art into the exciting new realm of interactivity, somewhere it has never successfully been until video games, would we downplay its importance by only caring about our personal experiences? How can you possibly justify that?

Has this outlook bothered anyone else?

Edit: I was going to post my opinion after hearing those of some others, but Scobie said it as well as I ever could have. Consider his opinion to be mine. Here's his rant:

Spoiler: Rant within

I know games can be art, and that's generally as much as I care to think about it. And I would love to not care about whether everyone else thinks they can be art or not. Problem is, it's not that simple. Because while the people who don't think games can be art might be idiots, they have power to determine how the world works just like I do.

I think that games have the potential to be not just art, but great art. I think they could scour the soul in ways achievable in no other medium. If that doesn't interest you, fine - but it interests me. There's plenty of room in the world for us all to get our kicks in our own way. There's never going to be a shortage of games made for fun. But those of us who want games to be something else are currently getting the short end of the stick and that's not fair.

Games can be art, but they're never going to reach their full potential until the majority recognise that fact. Developers are going to be reluctant to make games as art until they can be sure that there are people out there who will take them seriously and listen to the message they're trying to get across. Where are the art grants for video games? Where are the internationally-recognised indie games festivals? Most importantly, when are we going to stop seeing crap like this [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168235/Iraq-War-video-game-branded-crass-insensitive-father-Red-Cap-killed-action.html]? This was a game that was intended to provide some genuine insight into the realities of war. If it were a film, no-one would have batted an eyelid. But because everone knows games are just trivial entertainment, this was denounced as just a sick way to get some kicks and now it might never be released. What happens when games want to tackle taboo subject matter? The tabloids seize on them as using war or rape or slavery for trivial entertainment and publishers get scared, and those games are never played. And you might not care about them, but that's no reason to deny them to people like me who do.

So yeah. I care about whether games are seen as art or not, and it's not just because I want to justify my hobby to myself or make myself feel special and smart. I'm sick of hearing that. It is a practical consideration. I don't want to have to care about it, but I need to.

 

[kuyo]

There's a certain maturity to the outlook. Yes, it is important for legal purposes and such, but not caring about the societal perception keeps blood pressure down and is similar to agreeing to disagree. True, this outlook doesn't help when the society doesn't share the view of coexistence, but ultimately games and art are an experience of the individual. If one focuses on that, there is no intrinsic harm.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Good morning blues]

No, that's stupid. The 'video games as art' debate is a stupid argument because it's based on whether or not these things conform to a subjective list of qualifiers. It is fundamentally impossible to reach a consensus, and even if you did, it wouldn't change anything.

No ordinary person gives half a shit if movies are considered 'art' by the general populace; they evaluate them on their own merits. Wanting your favored medium to be different from that reeks of pretentiousness.

 

[Veylon]

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.

 

[Thaius]

snip

Thank you so much for saving me the time to write that myself. You pretty much nailed my point on the head; you're absolutely right. I figured I would have to write out my opinion in response to what people said here, but as it is, you've simplified this process immensely. Observe:

snip

snip

Spoiler: Scobie's rant was perfect

I know games can be art, and that's generally as much as I care to think about it. And I would love to not care about whether everyone else thinks they can be art or not. Problem is, it's not that simple. Because while the people who don't think games can be art might be idiots, they have power to determine how the world works just like I do.

I think that games have the potential to be not just art, but great art. I think they could scour the soul in ways achievable in no other medium. If that doesn't interest you, fine - but it interests me. There's plenty of room in the world for us all to get our kicks in our own way. There's never going to be a shortage of games made for fun. But those of us who want games to be something else are currently getting the short end of the stick and that's not fair.

Games can be art, but they're never going to reach their full potential until the majority recognise that fact. Developers are going to be reluctant to make games as art until they can be sure that there are people out there who will take them seriously and listen to the message they're trying to get across. Where are the art grants for video games? Where are the internationally-recognised indie games festivals? Most importantly, when are we going to stop seeing crap like this [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168235/Iraq-War-video-game-branded-crass-insensitive-father-Red-Cap-killed-action.html]? This was a game that was intended to provide some genuine insight into the realities of war. If it were a film, no-one would have batted an eyelid. But because everone knows games are just trivial entertainment, this was denounced as just a sick way to get some kicks and now it might never be released. What happens when games want to tackle taboo subject matter? The tabloids seize on them as using war or rape or slavery for trivial entertainment and publishers get scared, and those games are never played. And you might not care about them, but that's no reason to deny them to people like me who do.

So yeah. I care about whether games are seen as art or not, and it's not just because I want to justify my hobby to myself or make myself feel special and smart. I'm sick of hearing that. It is a practical consideration. I don't want to have to care about it, but I need to.

I would also like to add for Good Morning Blues that film never would have made it this far if people didn't eventually see the medium as art. Public perception of film as art was absolutely vital to its being taken seriously as a medium, and it would not be where it is today if people simply didn't care.

 

[Thaius]

People don't do things for the love of an art, they are attempting to make a living catering to others in order to make money, aka a living.

You really think that's the only reason any art has ever been made? If so, I pity you. Also, how the crap could you possibly think something like that? Yes, art forms are exploited for money, but that hardly means there is no one trying to make good art. Making such a ridiculous generalization would earn you much pain from a lot of game developers.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

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.

 

[The Cheezy One]

Art = subjective, as does fun. if a game is fun, and can be classified as art, great, but im not going to lose any sleep (or maybe i will) if a non-arty game is fun, but im not going to play a game just because its arty.
it does matter, just not as much as fun
a with the previous poster, its food analogy time!
fun = taste, art = appearance.
im not a chef, so i cant appreciate display as much as some, but ill be damned if i cant tell a good sausage sandwich!

 

[Good morning blues]

I would also like to add for Good Morning Blues that film never would have made it this far if people didn't eventually see the medium as art. Public perception of film as art was absolutely vital to its being taken seriously as a medium, and it would not be where it is today if people simply didn't care.

It absolutely was not. Movies were big business even back when it was considered stupid entertainment for stupid, poor, uncultured people. These days, it's largely the same except that we have higher-quality movies for the mass market, and there are a few people who want films to be high art who have their own art movie ghetto set up for themselves to prove how much more cultured they are than everybody else.

Is The Dark Knight art? (Keep in mind that your answer doesn't matter, because regardless of what you think, some people are dismissing it as populist tripe, some people are analyzing it for important social messages about crime, morality, and vigilanteism, and others are enjoying it because it's an entertaining two and a half hours, and no matter what you'll never be able to get all of them to agree.)

 

[Snake Plissken]

People don't care for the same reasons that they don't care about anything else being art. Do I necessarily care that films are considered art? Not really, but that's because I watch a lot of films that nobody would consider art. Cannibal Holocaust isn't really anybodies greatest artistic expression. I understand that film is an art form, but I don't care to see the ones that are considered high art.

 

[MechaBlue]

It matters for legal reasons. If games aren't an artistic medium, they aren't protected by freedom of speech laws. And if they aren't accepted as even remotely positive manner, they're going to remain to be seen as toys by the general population. Do you really want people to consider you on par with a little boy?

I can see why people wouldn't like the idea of games being considered art. Arteests tend to be pretty snooby and the entire art culture is pretentious. But isn't the gaming culture already going in that direction, even if they're not calling it art? I mean just look at these forums. "Sports games aren't REAL gamer games. Those low brow consumers should be ashamed of enjoying them or anything with a cutscene longer than 10 minutes. Halo is selling out."

 

[Thaius]

I know artists. They make a living creating for others, not themselves. The work the do for personal reasons end up as fodder for portfolios.

Keep in mind that, when discussing "art" and "artists" in this case, we are speaking of art on a broad scale, meaning it includes people who want to tell stories, make music, paint pictures, and more. So if you are really going to tell me that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings with no personal motivation, that Blomkamp made District 9 without love of film, or that the literary and mythological references in Mass Effect 2 were made with no desire to make a genuinely good artistic product... I really don't know what to say.

I understand that film is an art form, but I don't care to see the ones that are considered high art.

The very concept of "high art" is arrogant and imbecilic in the first place. It implies that some people are worth more or less based simply on what kinds of art they enjoy. All that is important is that a given art form is understood as an art form, because without that there will be very little advancement due to both public demand and government intervention. In other words, your understanding of it as an art form is all any art form needs, but it is a vital need.

 

[YouShouldDeleteThisAccount]

Games as art is a big topic and issue in out gaming culture today, and we're going to have to overcome a lot of hurdles like how the media views games, gender issues, and the prejudice against lots of gamers. And we don't have the art grants or major established critical circles and that sucks.

However, the popularity of shallower games and the neglect to games as an artistic medium by it's own users is not unique to games.

Consider for a moment mainstream music, or everyone who listens to music in general, most of it is rather untalented and shallow.

Consider the major blockbuster films and their cliched plots and common favoring of catering to the lowest common denominator over intelligent or emotive narrative.

Consider the amount of realty television and stereotypical sitcoms that fill the program schedules of most channels.

This neglect isn't just true of games, most television viewers, film goers, and music listeners also have no care for crafting, emotive work or art. Most people don't really "get" art.

 

[DragonChi]

In my eyes at least, I can't see games NOT being art. Games are quite simply..and interactive Painting with programming to make it possible. Think of all the Concept ART and texture ARTists that exists to create these colorful environments. Games are Active, living, communicating, immersive paintings. I don't see how anyone can dismiss any of that. I also believe that having this mind-set matters deeply, because it makes/allows/forces you to have a deeper sense of respect for the game as you are playing it. They are worlds that are created by a digital paintbrush, they are stunning..a lot of hard work goes into them. Some maybe more than others..but still.

Every time I play anything..there is never a moment when i don't consider how much artistic work has gone into it, and that makes the game that much more fun for me. I would like to think that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

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.

Most of these games are art discussions are by people who think that popular movies are the sort of art that games should aspire to be anyway. It's like a code word for making crappy games seem more respectable without improving them.