Games as art - why do we even care?!?

[Olas]

I personally think the word "art" should just be removed from the English (and every other)language.
The line between what is considered "art" and what isn't is so incredibly vague and convoluted that the term has truly become meaningless. Is an episode of Southpark art? Is a luxury vehicle art? Is [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)]a urinal[/a] art? Is a mass produced toy art? What about a carnival ride?

From my experience, the word "art" is only used to give a creation added prestige, usually with an aura of pretentiousness to boot. Things usually start becoming "art" as soon as we find a need to justify their existence. Nobody bothers to consider whether books are art because their importance is never questioned. Anybody who criticizes books is a crazed degenerate. Video Games however have always been viewed with a critical eye, and gamers therefore have to cling to the word "art" to prove to themselves that the outside world is wrong about the medium.
It's quite sad really and I think it really only turns gamers against each other.

 

[DeadYorick]

It's quite sad really and I think it really only turns gamers against each other.

Considering gamers almost deliberately look for things to fight about that's saying very little. I mean look at half the topics on this forum.

 

[Sperium 3000]

Here's a simple fact, the more highly people in general think of something, the less chances of it being scrutinized. If Video Games were to be pubicly and culturally recognized as art, do you think there would be as much people still thinking games are for children, or that they warp children's minds, or whatever other crap some guy tries to pull to get games banned or restricted?

And besides, I myself like art and I consider games to be an art as well. Is it wrong if I want something I like to be given the respect it deserves?

 

[Ticonderoga117]

I honestly don't care. What I want out of my games is to have a good time whether of the shooty-explodey variety ala Battlefield/Halo or the more structured variety ala Fallout/ME, and everything in between depending on my mood. Now if games eventually reach that coveted title of "art", which still leaves me confused why we want to strive for that and leave more important aspects to focus on in the dust, I won't complain either. Hell, might make future classes about art more exciting and interesting considering the nature of games. Or, it can be really boring, not sure which yet.

 

[Racecarlock]

This is something that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now:

Why do we even care if games are considered "art" or not?

As long as we're enjoying them, what does it matter if the rest of the world doesn't think they're art?

Are our egos really so fragile that we need games to be considered art in order for the time we spend playing them to seem worthwhile? Will our lives somehow be different if people see gaming as something akin to visiting a gallery or watching a noir film rather than just sitting in front of a screen mashing buttons?

Fans of all sorts of music - be it metal, electronic, hip hop, punk, whatever - have had people telling them for years that their preferred music is "just noise" and "not real music". But do they care? On the whole, no, they don't. They're too busy having fun. Should gamers be taking a leaf out of their book and just ignoring the whole issue?

I actually remember this. We want games to be officially classified as art by the government so that developers can put in as much sex and violence as they want without being completely banned from retail.

Also because roger ebert said a mean thing.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[Rawne1980]

I don't give a monkeys arse either way.

I started up my very first game back in 1985 and now, 27 years later (christ i'm getting old. 32 soon, feel free to send gifts) games are still the same as they were then .... a form of entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less.

This new influx of "games are art" is slightly bizarre. I see people that will vehemently defend gaming as an art form while there are some of us that couldn't possibly care any less.

I play games for a bit of fun and relaxation. I don't care if it's art, a toy, for kids or the devil (as some people seem to see gaming). To me, it's just entertainment.

 

[hazabaza1]

I don't.
People are all like "GAEMS ARENT ATR" and I'm all like 'whatevs, imma go play some vidja games.'

 

[AD-Stu]

Here's a simple fact, the more highly people in general think of something, the less chances of it being scrutinized. If Video Games were to be pubicly and culturally recognized as art, do you think there would be as much people still thinking games are for children, or that they warp children's minds, or whatever other crap some guy tries to pull to get games banned or restricted?

And besides, I myself like art and I consider games to be an art as well. Is it wrong if I want something I like to be given the respect it deserves?

No, there's nothing wrong with that per se. But have you thought about how hard you'd have to work for gaming to get that respect, and what you'd actually get out of it if you were successful? From where I'm standing, it'd be "impossibly hard" and "nothing much" respectively.

And maybe this is me missing the point of an American issue again, but I still don't see how classifying something as art frees it from scrutiny - or that being free from such scrutiny is necessarily a good thing. Maybe it's because I've gotten used to living in a country with a completely different system, but I personally don't see any problem with restricting access to games with mature content (be it extreme violence, sex, drug use, whatever) to people who are old enough to deal with it.

Either way, my understanding of the US situation is that games are already free from those restrictions, even though the majority don't consider them art. So... if they were suddenly considered art, nothing would actually change?

People judge Harry Potter because it's written for children and not artistic enough for a long time. Hasn't stopped it from being awesome and popular.

I think the reason people think it's important is because art can't be censored or restricted based on content, while commercial products can.

I wonder though, are they mutually exclusive states? Whether or not games are art, they're always going to be commercial products, designed for mass consumption.

 

[AD-Stu]

The long answer is that there are unfortunately a lot of people on either side of the issue that are stone cold ignorant of the other side and either can't be bothered to do a little research and understand why the issue comes up or they can't be bothered to listen to someone who isn't them.

This is true.

Just to be clear, I'm in no way saying that games aren't (or can't be) art - FWIW my personal view is that they certainly can be.

All I'm doing is wondering aloud why there's so much hype and hysteria over the issue, and what people think we really have to gain even if we did eventually "win" the debate.

So far all that's really been suggested is that we might:

- Feel better about the time we spend gaming
- Potentially get access to a greater variety of gaming content
- Solve some US-specific legal issues that, as far as I can tell, aren't actually an issue

Seriously, am I missing something? Because people seem to be investing an awful lot in this issue and I'm having trouble seeing why...

 

[axlryder]

I hate this question because it hardly ever considers the perspective of the artists. Having been an artist for quite a long time, best I can tell art can be most easily described as an emotional or creative outpouring via some kind of medium. The modelers, designers, musicians, animators and even the programmers are most likely all doing this to some extent. Video games are often times a massive artistic undertaking and to trivialize the very real artistic achievements and accomplishments of many an artist by saying "does it even matter if we call it art?" is a huge insult. Of course there is cheap shlock done for money. So what? Do all the pulply, grindhouse action films suddenly negate the artistic status of all other films? No. To ask whether or not it's important to consider video games art is the same as asking whether or not it's important to consider art art. Of course it is. If you want to ask why art is important then just look it up. There's plenty of information on the topic.

As to video games being designed for mass consumption. It's irrelevant. Some of the most famous paintings of all time were done on commission and designed for promotional purposes (the Sistine Chapel ceiling comes to mind). That doesn't really negate the artistic status of the art in question. Graphic designers, fashion designers, film makers, musicians, etc. all get the credit they're due. How people think video games are somehow magically different because they're interactive is beyond me.

 

[42]

This is something that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now:

Why do we even care if games are considered "art" or not?

As long as we're enjoying them, what does it matter if the rest of the world doesn't think they're art?

Are our egos really so fragile that we need games to be considered art in order for the time we spend playing them to seem worthwhile? Will our lives somehow be different if people see gaming as something akin to visiting a gallery or watching a noir film rather than just sitting in front of a screen mashing buttons?

Fans of all sorts of music - be it metal, electronic, hip hop, punk, whatever - have had people telling them for years that their preferred music is "just noise" and "not real music". But do they care? On the whole, no, they don't. They're too busy having fun. Should gamers be taking a leaf out of their book and just ignoring the whole issue?

considering that Videogames as an industry now is the biggest money making industry over music, dunno why porn isn't, i think your right that they should be taking a leaf out of the book of the music industry, which has been around for quite a long time. People think that it needs validation. if they're already enjoying it, then it has all the validation it needs.

 

[theSteamSupported]

Because I am looking forward to the day there is no distinct difference between art, entertainment and education.

We need toys that tells us that the world isn't as simple as we believe it to be. We need toys that encourages us to explore, understand and appreciate the complexity of our universe.

Religion, belief and faith are proofs that even adults need imaginary friends. Video games provides us imaginary friends and more, thus making religion obsolete.

It's fascinating to see a teenager disobey parents, teachers and other authorities, but still follow every order given by a video game. While real laws and morals tell us to take them for granted and threatens us to obey them, the laws and morals of games respect a person's intelligence and encourage her to understand why they're there in the first place.

Games are not art, they are something more than merely art. They're design.

Our universe is a clockwork. Science is its blueprint. Art is its beauty. Combine them and you have design, our key to the clockwork. That's why we need to games.

 

[Scarim Coral]

One could assume to care about it so they can justify using game as an art in a art project/ assignment or in a dicussion to prove he/ she is right about it.

 

[Rariow]

I don't entirely care whether people THINK games are art, because I know they are. Whether Random McPersonface agrees or not, they're art to me. The thing is, I feel that people are missing out on games. Most people think of the stereotypical dumb game, and t hus refuse to even try gaming. For instance: My father has a strong sense of humour, very akin to Portal's and loves spatial thinking. Yet he refuses to play Portal, because he thinks games are dumb. If games were more wildly considered art, not just dumb entertainment, he would probably enjoy Portal very, very much. It's not about me enjoying myself more, it's about the great non-gaming majority discovering what I take joy from.

And holy cow did that sound sappy. But I still stand by it.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Games have been art ever since they were conceived and will continue to be so long as passionate audiences for games exist as there are passionate audiences for music, movies, paintings, and books. Art has, and always will be a subjective term used by those to define anything that conjures a psychological or an emotional response, be it anger, happiness, contemplation, inspiration, or even despair. The instant grin that naturally emerges as the Mario theme begins to play to tearing up at Aeris' death to the despair and helplessness felt by watching Reach or the Middle-Eastern city in CoD4 burn to the ground can all be seen as "art".

Likewise, ANYTHING is art depending on those who choose to perceive what has artistic or cultural merit. That's why discussions about games "truly" being art are wastes of time. Art has always been a subjective definition depending on cultural norms, generational, or personal taste. No one holds a monopoly over what is and isn't art, we choose what is and isn't art. The words on a page, the data on a disk, or the painting we observe are as blank a page, a disk, and a canvas as they were before the words were printed, the data written, or the portrait painted. The only threat to art are those ignorant to the very definition of it.

 

[Manji187]

Maybe in another decade or two, Video Gaming will be considered (artistically speaking) equal to movies and books, but for now it's just gotta mature a bit more first.

That's an interesting statement. Videogaming just needs to mature a bit more first. Did you mean to say that the medium should endeavour to move beyond the endless power fantasies and provide psychologically more mature narratives and characters? Or something else entirely?