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

[axlryder]

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.

What a ridiculous and ostentatious post. You take loose threads of ideas based largely on presumptions and weave them together, acting like you've espoused some kind of lofty philosophy worth sharing.

 

[theSteamSupported]

What a ridiculous and ostentatious post. You take loose threads of ideas based largely on presumptions and weave them together, acting like you've espoused some kind of lofty philosophy worth sharing.

Okay, maybe my post was a little bit too fuzzy, dreamy and outright hippie-ish. It's pretty hard for me to choose a appropriate rhetoric when expressing an opinion. Seems like I have failed yet again, Lord Internet.

I want games to be fun, entertaining and fantasy-fulfilling, while still delivering a potent, thematic message. Without the fun, I as someone with ADD, will lose interest and attention. Without the message, people will condemn gaming as being nothing but a mindless pass time for children.

I too find art games to sometimes miss the point with interactivity, if that's what you were implying. The flash game 'Everyday Is The Same Dream' does a decent job expressing the monotone lifestyle of a white collar worker, but its gameplay is so minimal, that it could as well have been an animated short movie.

What I was trying to say is that video games are toys, but our attitude towards toys is way too ridiculous and childish. They don't have to be exclusive to toddlers and perverts, and I truly hope games can invalidate this incorrect assumption.

The same thing goes for imaginary friends, that's what video game protagonists are. Religious icons are also imaginary in that sense, but games have a slightly upper hand in this context. While games are an escape from reality, religion is a distortion of reality, and the former is thus healthier.

Oh, BTW, I prefer writing in the most abstract senses rather than giving concrete examples, for better or for worse.

 

[Aeonknight]

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?

There are plenty of reasons to care. Some more important than others.

Disclaimer: the only thing that truly matters is your personal opinion, like you've stated. I've known games were art since I played Chrono Trigger. To hell with anyone who says anything in contrast to that.

Now then, first issue: credit where credit is due. People who craft a truly good experience deserve to have their creation considered something more than just a children's toy. It degrades them and the work that went into making it.

Second: It then has a chance of becoming mainstream. If games are labeled as art, it makes it less of a social stigma to enjoy them. Thus leading a few close minded individuals to maybe give them a second glance, and finally try it out for themselves. More people experiencing gaming is a good thing.

Third: Legal reasons. Art can't be censored by some lawyer in California who thinks Grand Theft Auto killed his father and raped his mother.

Fourth: It makes sense. It has great visual elements, music, etc. It takes portions from the other artistic mediums and sometimes even outperforms said mediums. So how does it make sense that something that has all the elements of art to not be considered art? Because it's interactive? Yea, whatever.


Those are just a few reasons, I'm sure someone could think of more if they really want to. But at the end of the day if someone wants to think of me as childish for my choice in hobby/obsession, then their opinion really doesn't affect me. I game because I enjoy it, and as long as I continue to enjoy it I'll be doing it.

 

[AD-Stu]

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.

Ah. That establishes why developers care. But (and I know this sounds callous) it still doesn't give me a reason to care. How validated Ken Levine feels when he goes to bed at night has no bearing whatsoever on my life, or my enjoyment of a game.

Plus there are plenty of people around who consider video games to be art and give validation to the people that created them. I simply can't believe those creators are going to storm off in a huff and stop making games just because the portion of the population that considers their work to be "art" isn't big enough.

First amendment protection would actually be very valuable to the industry and it's good that we finally got it.

In other words, games getting first amendment protection keeps a bunch of panicky, moralizing weirdos from trying to deliver us all from their temptation.

A thought: is the government really the biggest threat when it comes to games and censorship?

I guess they've got the power to make the biggest difference with the least effort, but they're unlikely to bother unless there's a whole heap of their constituents getting all up in their grill demanding they take that action.

Which brings us to the root of the issue: IMO, the bigger threat is people power. If a (for the sake of the argument, please don't think I'm singling them out as the only group that would do this) fundamentalist christian group got its panties in a bunch over a game and got millions of people to start sending hate mail to stores carrying that game, saying they were going to boycott the store until the game was pulled from the shelves... how does the first amendment protect you when the store caves to their demands?

It was that kind of action, not anything handed down by a government, that got Six Days in Fallujah shelved. And it happens in the music industry all the freaking time.

The first amendment doesn't required a privately-owned business to carry a particular title (as far as I know - as mentioned, I'm not American), and the protesters certainly couldn't care less whether the game was "art" or not. So does having games classified as art really solve the problem?

 

[somonels]

I care because someone is trying to pass a turnip for a carrot.

Games are not art, they are games; not to say games can't be art but most that claim to be definitely aren't. A lot of artists work on games but a lot of arty bits does not make a big piece of art.
Come at me, grammar nazis.

 

[Laser Priest]

Not all games are art. Games can be great and have fantastic narratives without needing to be art, something idiots like Chipman don't understand.

It's a diverse medium, and anyone who thinks that all games are either art or not is a fool.

Personally, though, I couldn't care less whether they are classified as art or not.

 

[Fappy]

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

Yeaaah, that's pretty much me as well. Indifferent to the whole thing. I really don't care if people disagree with me about something that is, quite frankly, a meaningless discussion. I play video games because they are entertaining. I am entertained by some art and believe some games have artistic merit. Therefore I believe many of my video games (which I play because they entertain me) are artistic. You don't agree? Cool. I still think its art. You disagreeing with me isn't going to magically make me feel bad/guilty about my hobby.

 

[Bealzibob]

I think it's a bit offensive to belittle games under the trite title of art. Games are much more than art will ever be and deserve to be consider entirely on their own merits as oppose to constrasted against art.

 

[Seanfall]

I've been gaming since I got my first Game Boy (the black and white one) and played Pokemon on it. I never have, never will care if games are considered 'art'. Maybe it's just that I never really cared what other's thought about me or my hobbies. I don't think you can define the best games as simply 'art' and even then a lot of people have taken the meaning of the word 'art' to mean something it doesn't. Art is a subjective, scratch that VERY subjective thing. Paintings, suclputres, music, movies etc. etc. etc. What one person loves another will hate.

And just because something can or is considered 'art' doesn't mean, DOESN'T MEAN, it's above scorn, crictisism, and out right hate. Especially if the people offering up that scorn, crictisism, etc. was lied to about it and paid money for it. And as far as 'artistic integrity' goes. The moment money enters the equation it goes right out the window.

 

[AD-Stu]

If games are considered art they will be afforded the first amendment rights they rightfully deserve. They can tell Fox to shove off and they'll have the courts on their side.

without it? Games are Fox's whipping boy. Without the 'art' status games are seen as a force for evil in the world, a way to corrupt young minds, and they won't be protected by the courts.

It's a load of bullshit. Gangster rap gets ignored entirely by Fox, yet video games get singled out time and again.

Again, this might be me not being American and therefore not understanding, or not being aware of some relevant precedent (in addition to not being American I'm definitely not a lawyer)...

...but I really, really don't see how the first amendment protects games in that instance. It doesn't (as far as I can tell) include any specific mention of protecting art but it does specifically protect freedom of the press.

So am I wrong, or isn't it Fox's side the courts would be on if anyone tried to tell them to "shove off". I'm pretty sure having their work considered art hasn't stopped Fox criticising musicians or film makers either - I simply refuse to believe that they never give negative press to any media other than video games.

 

[Aprilgold]

So that 1 Million Moms can't sue the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Books being art gave it protection from people who wanted to censor it, same with movies and music. Games need that defense so that developers aren't left jobless if they make a game with a sex scene in it. It helps stop censorship, which is great.

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

 

[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.

Ah. That establishes why developers care. But (and I know this sounds callous) it still doesn't give me a reason to care. How validated Ken Levine feels when he goes to bed at night has no bearing whatsoever on my life, or my enjoyment of a game.

No, that establishes why WE SHOULD care. I can't speak for the developers so I haven't actually established why the developers do or don't care. Only they can do that. However, we should care because to not recognize art as art is just categorically wrong and insulting to the individuals who create content for "our" medium. Needing more reason than that to simply "care" doesn't sound callous, it sounds illogical and rude. Not trying to be mean, but I don't know how to phrase that more tactfully. Whether or not you feel compelled to pursue this beyond mere contemplation is your business, and I can understand if you'd just rather not be assed about it, but I've already given you a good enough reason to give a crap.

Plus there are plenty of people around who consider video games to be art and give validation to the people that created them. I simply can't believe those creators are going to storm off in a huff and stop making games just because the portion of the population that considers their work to be "art" isn't big enough.

No one said that; you're moving the goalposts here. My original quote answers your question perfectly fine. You have yet to rebut it. If you were attempting to ask something other than "why should we, as a community, care if games are considered art", then you should learn to phrase your questions better.

 

[AD-Stu]

In all seriousness though, if we look at the kind of content that's in games today, what exactly are we missing out on? What's being censored, that we would otherwise get to see if games could hold up a magic shield labelled "art"?

The answer in my country is "quite a bit, actually", but that's an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with whether games are art or not because our government does exactly the same thing to other "artforms", including movies.

But games like GTA, Modern Warfare, Mass Effect and others all suggest to me that developers are being allowed to put pretty much whatever the hell they want into their games already. The mind boggles thinking about what else they could possibly be hoping to include...

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

FWIW, I don't think the "art" label will do anything to stop that kind of behaviour.

Being legitimate art didn't stop people crusading over how "evil" a work like Piss Christ was. Someone mentioned earlier that comics are largely considered art now, but it didn't stop the million mums crusading over Archie either.

 

[Aprilgold]

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

FWIW, I don't think the "art" label will do anything to stop that kind of behaviour.

Being legitimate art didn't stop people crusading over how "evil" a work like Piss Christ was. Someone mentioned earlier that comics are largely considered art now, but it didn't stop the million mums crusading over Archie either.

Helps deter that type of behavior. You won't see many people saying that the Mona Lisa is a sin, so it does work to deter this type of behavior.

Also, comic-books are not considered art by the government, which really is the final say on this at the moment.

 

[xDarc]

I'm actually kind of pissed off about the whole games as art thing. Since I started playing them, games have changed from deeply involved and intricate forms of entertainment that challenged you- to boring narratives, slowed down and simplified games that can you can play with one hand free so as not to interrupt couch potato activities such as stuffing your face, getting stoned, or playing with your prick.

Games have become a shadow of their former selves as they have moved away from their own standards in reflexes and strategy.

The best games were on PC in the late 90's to very early 2000s. The debut of xbox360 marked the end of a golden era as far as I'm concerned. I buy 3 games or less a year now. I thought I'd never stop being a gamer, but now I don't think people see being a gamer as having anything to do with actually being good at playing video games... especially games that aren't even challenging anymore.

More like games have stopped being for gamers. Now they're main stream pieces of narrative trash for the same folks who watch network television.