Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[kuyo]

snip

I didn't nor will I ever utter that word.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

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.

The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.

 

[2xDouble]

Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].

 

[Thaius]

Oh my god would you please just shut the fuck up about games & art!
This topic comes up at least once a day and has been done to death.

Which is something I addressed in the first sentence of the original post, but this is an important topic regardless. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't post.

What is "Art" is subjective => Arguing about something subjective makes you an idiot => It doesn't matter

Well for one, arguing about something subjective makes you a philosopher, not an idiot.

Seriously though, this is a huge problem. We're focusing too much on the actual definition of art and completely ignoring the fact that certain things are labeled and considered art by the general public. This labeling is vitally important, because it is an indication that the society is willing to take it seriously, and thus more thought and effort will go into many of the works, and innovative risks will be taken where there would otherwise be nothing but repetition of old concepts.

This is not about trying to make various works fit a subjective definition, it is about attaining a social status that allows the medium to be worth exploring artistically. And that hardly "doesn't matter."

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.

Art is vital to culture because it is the core expression of human creativity, for one. It is the way we explore our limitations and broaden our horizons. Beyond that, storytelling specifically is extremely important, even to those that don't put a huge personal emphasis on it. Stories both define and record the culture in which they are made, and it's well understood that the illustration of a concept through a story is infinitely more effective than simply explaining the concept. I won't go too far into storytelling theory here, but this is basic, widely accepted stuff: art, and storytelling specifically, is extremely important to any 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.

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.

But video games have never been taken seriously as competition either, partially because any single-player game is useless as competition (since there are no actual opponents involved) and partially because people are stupid and don't understand the legitimacy of a well-designed multiplayer game. But the point is, your argument is dependent on the same acknowledgement mine is: games need to be recognized by society as legitimate. But apparently while I value their artistic and storytelling power, you value their competitive power. And that's fine: I agree they need more recognition as a legitimate form of competition. But it's incredibly near-sighted and incomplete to only care about the advancement of that one aspect, because that is not all video games are.

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.

Again, if games were taken seriously as competition (anywhere other than Korea, at least), you would have a point. As it is, all you can say is that we should be fighting for social recognition of gaming as competition and not video games as art, which, as I mentioned before, is simply an incomplete and flawed view of the issue. Both are important, so don't try to lower one in an attempt to heighten your preference.

Beyond that, it's extremely Ebert-esque to say that simply because games and art have been separated throughout history they cannot be joined now. That's an incredibly restrictive and anti-progressive view of art, and art would not be where it is today if we all had the idea that historical non-inclusion means definitional non-inclusion.

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.

You personally don't need to explore something artistically for it to be art. But I don't think you realize how important the social status of "art form" is to a medium. You know why you enjoy Fight Club more than, say, Eragon, or your average soap opera? It's because Fight Club is artistically superior (I know artistic superiority is subjective, but this is a rather generally accepted viewpoint). Whether you actually explore or understand it as such, you do have to recognize that its artistic quality is the reason you enjoy it so much. Were it worse in that regard (with a bad story, cheesy writing, or bad acting), you would not like it as much, because it would not be as good. Whether you look at something as art or not, your enjoyment of it is dependent on its artistic quality.

As for your first edit, consider that film is art. Meaning Fight Club is art. If that is pretentious drivel... well, it's not.

What you are talking about is "high art;" a vain concept soaked in hubris and clung to only by those who demand superiority in their area of interest. But that is not what art is.

As for my OP, I meant to argue it once I got some responses. Putting your entire argument in your opening post encourages people to spend their entire first posts trying to tear apart your argument rather than addressing the topic, which distracts from the issue at hand. I have now fixed it by adding Scobie's Rant, because it says it just as well as I ever could.

 

[Thaius]

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.

Watch Extra Credits. Seriously, the narrative power of interactive storytelling (read: video games) has been discussed and displayed so many times, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it. Just watch this. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives]

I will also post this quote from this article. [http://www.destructoid.com/exploring-i-bioshock-i-s-storytelling-flaws-46498.phtml]

Spoiler: Bioshock Spoilers

"Noninteractivity is used brilliantly within the context of the scene: for perhaps the first time in the entire game, the player doesn?t want to kill Andrew Ryan, but Jack?s violent nature and refusal to question his orders are too much and the player is forced to watch, horrified, as he mercilessly and uncontrollably batters Ryan to death.

"It stands as the single greatest noninteractive cut scene in gaming history. Ever. As a storytelling device, noninteractivity is used as a weapon against the player: you don?t want to question why you?re doing what you?re doing? Fine -- you?re nothing better than a mindless, robotic slave, and you have essentially given up the human gift of choice. Having control taken away is, within the context of the story, a tangible punishment for accepting things on face value and blindly following orders."

As for gameplay itself being art, that's not hard to argue. One approach could be that it is a new way to approach the idea of "art imitating life," in that it is literally an artistic imitation of life and the various actions performed in the game. That could actually be argued very strongly. Beyond that, however, even if gameplay itself is not art, interactivity in storytelling most definitely is. It makes it so that... you know what, just watch freaking Extra Credits. I won't even bother trying to explain it as well as they do.

I will point out, however, that gaming is still a relatively new (and largely due to the lack of cultural acceptance, still largely unexplored) art form. Meaning that, by claiming gameplay as unartistic, you are attacking an area of artistic theory that has not yet been developed. That may make it an easy target, but any sort of victory will be shallow and incomplete.

Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].

See, this person has it right. Good show. And yes, that video displays very well how important it is that video games are seen as art.

The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.

Games are important as well, but as I said to Compute, single player video games contain little to nothing of what makes games culturally important (competition against other worthy opponents), and multiplayer games are not yet culturally accepted as a legitimate form of competition. Meaning that single-player games have little to offer if we are only viewing them as "games," and multiplayer games are in a similar situation as artistic games in that neither of them are culturally recognized, so neither of them will see the advancement and attention they deserve. So really, your argument only comes down to, "We shouldn't be worrying about video games as art, we should be worrying about video games as competition!" It's perfectly valid to value one over the other, but it's near-sighted and ignorant to view the other as not worth exploring.

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

For example: graphics, music, story.

Every art form is a combination of other art forms. Are you going to claim music is not art because it involves composition, playing various instruments, singing, and poetry? Is film "not art" because it involves photography+movement, audio, music, acting, writing, and much more? Is stage drama not art because it involves acting, writing, staging, lighting, music, and more? Only with video games do people claim that a joining of various art forms into one cohesive, independent work is not in itself art; it really is an illegitimate argument.

 

[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.

You personally don't need to explore something artistically for it to be art. But I don't think you realize how important the social status of "art form" is to a medium. You know why you enjoy Fight Club more than, say, Eragon, or your average soap opera? It's because Fight Club is artistically superior (I know artistic superiority is subjective, but this is a rather generally accepted viewpoint). Whether you actually explore or understand it as such, you do have to recognize that its artistic quality is the reason you enjoy it so much. Were it worse in that regard (with a bad story, cheesy writing, or bad acting), you would not like it as much, because it would not be as good. Whether you look at something as art or not, your enjoyment of it is dependent on its artistic quality.

As for your first edit, consider that film is art. Meaning Fight Club is art. If that is pretentious drivel... well, it's not.

What you are talking about is "high art;" a vain concept soaked in hubris and clung to only by those who demand superiority in their area of interest. But that is not what art is.

As for my OP, I meant to argue it once I got some responses. Putting your entire argument in your opening post encourages people to spend their entire first posts trying to tear apart your argument rather than addressing the topic, which distracts from the issue at hand. I have now fixed it by adding Scobie's Rant, because it says it just as well as I ever could.

So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?

... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

 

[dorkette1990]

It's very important to ME that games be judged as art because I am an artist FOR games.... I wouldn't like to think that all my time-consuming animations and carefully considered compositions and designs were nothing more than paint on a binary wall... if that makes sense.

 

[Thaius]

No, it doesn't bother me, because I like games because they're fun.

If some wanker with an Arts degree wants to proclaim all games as Art and are the most culturally influencing thing since berets, black framed spectacles and turtlenecks that's fine with me, just please stop fucking telling me about it.

And here I thought the most important aspect of society was its ability to govern.

For one, I never said art was the most important aspect of society, but it is pretty dang important. A basic understanding of sociology reveals this much. If you're going to try and effectively undermine my argument, don't twist it.

More importantly, you don't need to appreciate games as art. That's fine if you don't. But not caring about it effectively means you don't care about the advancement of the medium. Video games are going somewhere, and to only care about your personal enjoyment is to not care about where that is, or how the medium will get there. Even if you don't personally care about artistry in games, if you have any affection for the medium you should care about the public perception. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech]

 

[Thaius]

So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?

... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]

As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.

 

[Thaius]

Well for one, arguing about something subjective makes you a philosopher, not an idiot.
Same thing

Seriously though, this is a huge problem. We're focusing too much on the actual definition of art and completely ignoring the fact that certain things are labeled and considered art by the general public. This labeling is vitally important, because it is an indication that the society is willing to take it seriously, and thus more thought and effort will go into many of the works, and innovative risks will be taken where there would otherwise be nothing but repetition of old concepts.
Society takes things like sport seriously without considering them art. Games don't need "Art" status to be taken seriously.

This is not about trying to make various works fit a subjective definition, it is about attaining a social status that allows the medium to be worth exploring artistically. And that hardly "doesn't matter."
Labelling it art won't help at all with that (well, okay, maybe it will give it support from wankers with goatees and Berets. But they don't do anything anyway.)

Philosophers are idiots? I'm starting to question whether this would even be worth it... But seeing as how I love a good argument, I'll continue.

Society does take sport seriously: I never argued otherwise. What I did say is that video games still aren't seen as a legitimate sport, thus meaning you're vying for the same thing I am, only for competition rather than art. I agree that video games need to be recognized as a legitimate form of competition: a sport, if you will. But you're basically trying to elevate the importance of video games as a sport by downplaying the importance of video games as an art. They're both important, because video games have the potential to be great examples of both. There is absolutely no reason a well-designed video game cannot be a perfectly legitimate and awesome form of competition, and due to interactivity, video games have the ability to take art to places it's never been capable of going, and has already done this to an extent. They're both true, and you don't need to actively participate in both to recognize them. So if you want video games to be absolutely nothing but a sport, good for you, but considering they have the potential to be so much more, why would you advocate for one possibility and purposefully discount the other?

As for artistic status meaning nothing... I will once again link to this video. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] If you don't understand after this, I don't know what to say.

 

[Deleted]

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.

Watch Extra Credits. Seriously, the narrative power of interactive storytelling (read: video games) has been discussed and displayed so many times, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it. Just watch this. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives]

I will also post this quote from this article. [http://www.destructoid.com/exploring-i-bioshock-i-s-storytelling-flaws-46498.phtml]

Spoiler: Bioshock Spoilers

"Noninteractivity is used brilliantly within the context of the scene: for perhaps the first time in the entire game, the player doesn?t want to kill Andrew Ryan, but Jack?s violent nature and refusal to question his orders are too much and the player is forced to watch, horrified, as he mercilessly and uncontrollably batters Ryan to death.

"It stands as the single greatest noninteractive cut scene in gaming history. Ever. As a storytelling device, noninteractivity is used as a weapon against the player: you don?t want to question why you?re doing what you?re doing? Fine -- you?re nothing better than a mindless, robotic slave, and you have essentially given up the human gift of choice. Having control taken away is, within the context of the story, a tangible punishment for accepting things on face value and blindly following orders."

As for gameplay itself being art, that's not hard to argue. One approach could be that it is a new way to approach the idea of "art imitating life," in that it is literally an artistic imitation of life and the various actions performed in the game. That could actually be argued very strongly. Beyond that, however, even if gameplay itself is not art, interactivity in storytelling most definitely is. It makes it so that... you know what, just watch freaking Extra Credits. I won't even bother trying to explain it as well as they do.

I will point out, however, that gaming is still a relatively new (and largely due to the lack of cultural acceptance, still largely unexplored) art form. Meaning that, by claiming gameplay as unartistic, you are attacking an area of artistic theory that has not yet been developed. That may make it an easy target, but any sort of victory will be shallow and incomplete.

Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].

See, this person has it right. Good show. And yes, that video displays very well how important it is that video games are seen as art.

The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.

Games are important as well, but as I said to Compute, single player video games contain little to nothing of what makes games culturally important (competition against other worthy opponents), and multiplayer games are not yet culturally accepted as a legitimate form of competition. Meaning that single-player games have little to offer if we are only viewing them as "games," and multiplayer games are in a similar situation as artistic games in that neither of them are culturally recognized, so neither of them will see the advancement and attention they deserve. So really, your argument only comes down to, "We shouldn't be worrying about video games as art, we should be worrying about video games as competition!" It's perfectly valid to value one over the other, but it's near-sighted and ignorant to view the other as not worth exploring.

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

For example: graphics, music, story.

Every art form is a combination of other art forms. Are you going to claim music is not art because it involves composition, playing various instruments, singing, and poetry? Is film "not art" because it involves photography+movement, audio, music, acting, writing, and much more? Is stage drama not art because it involves acting, writing, staging, lighting, music, and more? Only with video games do people claim that a joining of various art forms into one cohesive, independent work is not in itself art; it really is an illegitimate argument.

Now that I think about it you're right. That argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Thaius]

No, it doesn't bother me, because I like games because they're fun.

If some wanker with an Arts degree wants to proclaim all games as Art and are the most culturally influencing thing since berets, black framed spectacles and turtlenecks that's fine with me, just please stop fucking telling me about it.

And here I thought the most important aspect of society was its ability to govern.

For one, I never said art was the most important aspect of society, but it is pretty dang important. A basic understanding of sociology reveals this much. If you're going to try and effectively undermine my argument, don't twist it.

More importantly, you don't need to appreciate games as art. That's fine if you don't. But not caring about it effectively means you don't care about the advancement of the medium. Video games are going somewhere, and to only care about your personal enjoyment is to not care about where that is, or how the medium will get there. Even if you don't personally care about artistry in games, if you have any affection for the medium you should care about the public perception. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech]

Okay - fair point - you didn't exactly say art is the most important, although where an

extremely important aspect of culture and society...

lies on the scale of importance I have to honestly say I don't know. From my point of view, art is a nice by-product of society when it's not busy tearing itself apart or trying to support itself. Even more simply, you can live without art.

I have to respectfully disagree with your second point. My personal enjoyment (and millions... maybe billions now of others) has been the focus of game developers since the beginning, because it separates me from my hard earned money.

And I am unconcerned about the 'Free Speech' thing you've linked (I also can't watch it @ work) because it's in the same basket as the 'I'm scared of the internet because I don't know how to use it, but my kids do and I want to protect them so I'll vote to ban / filter it' issue.

[Sweeping Generalisation]
If ever the internet or videogames are banned/controlled/whatever, when the bulk of the ignorant become too old to make policy and the young and tech-savvy hold sway again these things we value so much will return. Failing that, we can always resort to violence.

I didn't say exactly because exact importance of pretty much any societal element is up for debate. Yes, it is possible to live without art, but all we really need for life is food, water, and warmth. Are you suggesting anything other than that is unimportant? Art is unimportant to existence, but it is vital to a society. And society, the ability to coordinate and live among each other under a common set of rules and goals, is one of the main things that separates us from animals. Art has always been an important part of society, even if it's not necessary for life itself.

And actually, I recommend watching that video anyway, because it's not that simple. This is actually a case where video games will either be seen legally as an art or be subject to regulation no different than a controlled substance. Check it out when you're not at work.

 

[Imp Poster]

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.

How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.

But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.

 

[whooshiwoo]

I believe that it doesn't matter whether something is widely accepted as art as long as the ones that "matter" accept it to be.
What's art and what's not will always - not only in the case of video games - be a matter for discussion. Take some traditional paintings for example: What I see in them may be a blob of colours without meaning worth practically nothing, while someone else might declare it as art and buy it for millions of Euros. Is it art now or not? Both and neither depending on who sees it.

I don't think it would be right to say that games in general are "art" while it would be just as wrong to say that in general they are not.
Art, to me, is more than just a certain kind of craftmanship such as painting or game development - it's a specific piece worth being declared as art for being special to me - in whatever way -, and thus something very personal.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

@Thaius; Very impressive description on the vital importance of story telling to the existence of humanity. I'm pretty sure that research totally backs up play as an important part of child development. Especially in terms of things like developing an imagination and socialisation.

I'm not sure why you narrowed down on competition as something that is required to make games important. Competition often adds spice to a game and is very important games that need spectators but it isn't a requirement for a game. Nor is playing with other people. Playing the game of walking home while avoiding the cracks on the pavement is a pretty common game and can be played solitaire with no real consequence for failure.

Being on TV like Starcraft in Korea isn't any sort of good measure of the importance of games since you are not fully engaging with the games by watching someone play them on TV. Lot's of people play video games, a lot of them single player.

Am I saying that games and narrative can never be joined? No, you can clearly attach a narrative to a game but it is a fallacy of definition to say that doing so somehow makes the game art. There is some crossover in how the two elements can be combine, like creating a story about how if you step on a crack in a pavement you will fall in to a shadow world, but the two are not the same thing. Creating the story about falling into the cracks without allocating more significance to the act of actually avoiding the cracks is less interesting.

So, games are mainly fun and games, not art, but playing is something we are hard wired to enjoy and we gain something from it. Play can also take many forms from riddles and word games to develop language, solitary imaginative play to develop more introspective and creative skills, mimic type play where you copy actions to learn skills, social type play where you learn rules of socialisation and organisation. Probably many others. Sure, video games can be made with all of those things that have a high level of challenge and competition but that isn't needed for them to have importance. Any more than stories are not important to you unless you are the best at reading and interpreting hard books or writing screen plays for oscar winning movies.

 

[omega 616]

So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?

... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]

As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.

That link basically says everything is art, which means the word is useless. "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively" Everything needs some level of creativeness to be made.

"the creation of beautiful or significant things" As the saying goes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and define significant? If the Mona Lisa had never been painted, would the world be so radically different to this one?

"a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation" Brain surgery fits that description but Not many would consider that art.

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings" is the only one that fits but as you said this thread isn't about whether games are art, it's about whether we should care if they are or not.

I think I just provided the future argument for every "are games art thread that will now ever exist

If you cut the word (or other forms of the word) "art" out of your post it still makes sense, if even one part of the film's making was crap it would bring down the rest of the film in terms of quality, that isn't to say that quality is artistic quality.