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

[boag]

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?

Before the entire SOPA/PIPA thing, I cared, now I dont, I dont give a shit if Goverment comes in and fucks over the industry, I dont give a shit if Goverment censors the fuck out of the industry.

Why?

Because there will still be Vidja that merits artistic integrity if they want it to.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

I can get over snobs dismissing games. That doesn't bother me, what bothers me is that 'art' is given free licence to cover more or less any topic it wants. It is protected.

If games aren't recognised as an artistic medium, there's the chance that people could impose censors.

I know films etc can be censored. But that's more to fit an age certificate than it is because they wouldn't be allowed to release it. Films can and have tackled very touchy and risky topics. But when a game decides to do so it usually gets canned.

That is more to do with publishers than censorship though.

Video games have covered just as many topics as movies. Mediocre cookie-cutter bullshit gets put out in the video game world because that's what sells. Movies rarely cover a plethora of topics. A few movies out of Hollywood each year are more than just romantic comedies, comedy dramas, and action; not more than that. It's the same way only a few games every year are more than just FPS's, sandbox action games, and cover-based shooters.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

I can get over snobs dismissing games. That doesn't bother me, what bothers me is that 'art' is given free licence to cover more or less any topic it wants. It is protected.

If games aren't recognised as an artistic medium, there's the chance that people could impose censors.

I know films etc can be censored. But that's more to fit an age certificate than it is because they wouldn't be allowed to release it. Films can and have tackled very touchy and risky topics. But when a game decides to do so it usually gets canned.

That is more to do with publishers than censorship though.

Video games have covered just as many topics as movies. Mediocre cookie-cutter bullshit gets put out in the video game world because that's what sells. Movies rarely cover a plethora of topics. A few movies out of Hollywood each year are more than just romantic comedies, comedy dramas, and action; not more than that. It's the same way only a few games every year are more than just FPS's, sandbox action games, and cover-based shooters.

Remember the whole controversy about MW2s airport scene?

That's more what I'm talking about.

It's not an isolate case either, you get people trying to censor games when they don't do the same to films. And I wouldn't say games have quite made it to the same point as films in how well they represent certain things. Even the indi stuff that I love is still rather juvenile when you compare it to films that are tackling the same subject matter.

And that's a result of the attitude most people have to games. There's no reason they can't be as poignant explorations of humanity as films or even books, people just don't approach them with the same mindset. One of the first boxes people tick when making a game is 'is it fun', 'will it keep people entertained'.

Which is great for the majority of games, but sometimes the most insightful films aren't enjoyable. Sometimes entertainment value isn't what a story needs to be rich in.

Currently games are viewed as a toy. And the fact that people complain when they tackle painful topics doesn't help that.

Yeah, there was a similar controversy in film not too long ago. Look up "Four Lions", a film that almost didn't get picked up because the main characters were all terrorists.

Are you kidding me? There are entire brigades of people constantly keeping certain books out of schools or trying to ban them altogether just based on language alone. Ever hear of Their Eyes Were Watching God or Huck Finn? It happens to metal music even to this day. And as I just pointed out, it happens to movies too.

You're right. There isn't any reason they can't be as poignant as films or books, because plenty of them are. If you think a vast majority of people look at books or film with any mindset other than 'is it fun' or 'will it keep me entertained', then you have no idea what you're talking about. I work in both industries and you wouldn't believe how much the gaming industry already mirrors the film and book industry in terms of how much drivel and commercial nonsense comes out of it in lieu of intellectual, high concept works.

No one's complaining that games tackle painful topics. I have never heard a gamer ever say they don't like games tackling important topics, only games that sacrifice gameplay workability or quality atmosphere to make a point.

What do you say about comic books? A majority of people still think comic books are kiddie books, but comic books covered racism, rape, terrorism, domestic abuse, mental illness, and drug abuse at the same time as, or even before, films or television or movies.

I'll conceded that the pro-censorship crowd dislike games because they're stupid and don't like gore and sex because THEY think games are toys. But they're outsiders even compared to people who don't play games and just leave the issue alone. The artistic integrity of video games isn't being harmed because people think games are juvenile. The artistic integrity of video games is being harmed because people are juvenile.

 

[AD-Stu]

What part of "categorically wrong" don't you understand? if I say a duck isn't part of the family Anatidae, it may not make it less tasty, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth pointing out that I'm wrong. Also, it's not just "good manners", it's about giving someone credit that they deserve. Essentially you're just saying "but you haven't given me a good reason to care because it would require effort". Being lazy isn't magically a good excuse to not give a damn. It just means you're lazy.

I'm not saying it's because it would require effort - I'm saying I wouldn't get anything out of making the effort, aside maybe from an esoteric warm and fuzzy feeling that I'd somehow validated the existence and efforts of someone who was already getting paid to do a job.

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

Yeah, there was a similar controversy in film not too long ago. Look up "Four Lions", a film that almost didn't get picked up because the main characters were all terrorists.

Are you kidding me? There are entire brigades of people constantly keeping certain books out of schools or trying to ban them altogether just based on language alone. Ever hear of Their Eyes Were Watching God or Huck Finn? It happens to metal music even to this day. And as I just pointed out, it happens to movies too.

If I can just add to this, I think it's important to remember too that "classified as art = protection from censorship" doesn't necessarily apply outside of the United States.

Plenty of other countries around the world do censor movies, television shows, games and more, and the "art" label doesn't provide them with any protection. And that's just considering government censorship, not the people-power stuff.

 

[josephmatthew10]

Methinks Mr. SnakeOil hasn't played enough video games. Did you know (and this may surprise you) that something can be both art AND entertainment? I could hardly believe it myself when I found out. Take, say, Tolkien, or even the best of Stephen King. Or some of BioWare's games, or even the games of most of the more popular studios.

 

[Thammuz]

Some people need external validation for their hobbies i guess.

I can't help but envision most of the "games are art" crowd (particularly those who misplace the sentiment entirely by calling art games like CoD or WoW, and yes, i've seen it done) as people who feel ashamed they like something THEY have no respect for and so they try to have it recognised as somehting culturally viable. Much like people who think Transformers is more culturally acceptable than Call of Duty, because one is a movie and the other is a toy for kids.

To me, there is no question. Games are art. I don't need everyone else to see that, i know that in a couple of decades' time it won't even be an issue anymore. Let the new generation of gamers, those who grew up gaming since they were old enough to handle a controller, take the helm and start making new stuff bsed on the stuff they liked, like it happend with Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg and there will be no point in asking. It happend with everything, it will happen with videogames.

 

[axlryder]

What part of "categorically wrong" don't you understand? if I say a duck isn't part of the family Anatidae, it may not make it less tasty, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth pointing out that I'm wrong. Also, it's not just "good manners", it's about giving someone credit that they deserve. Essentially you're just saying "but you haven't given me a good reason to care because it would require effort". Being lazy isn't magically a good excuse to not give a damn. It just means you're lazy.

I'm not saying it's because it would require effort - I'm saying I wouldn't get anything out of making the effort, aside maybe from an esoteric warm and fuzzy feeling that I'd somehow validated the existence and efforts of someone who was already getting paid to do a job.

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

So you've just admitted that not giving the artist credit for their art is morally wrong. Fine by me. Thanks for forfeiting. That is, unless you'd like to contest the notion that they DO deserve credit.

Also, since I have yet to see a single solid argument from anyone as to why the gaming medium should not be classified as art (and many that confirm such a classification), not classifying it as such truly is illogical, and thus absolutely wrong. You're argument really is terrible. You're basically saying that your own laziness and self-interest somehow justifies your apathy, just phrasing it slightly different for the past couple of posts. Since when was it accepted that people need an ulterior motive to just do the right thing? If you're just admitting to being a less than admirable person then fine, but don't act as though that sentiment does or should reflect the general attitude of the community as a whole. This argument was never about just you.

 

[AD-Stu]

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

So you've just admitted that not giving the artist credit for their art is morally wrong. Fine by me. Thanks for forfeiting. That is, unless you'd like to contest the notion that they DO deserve credit.

*facepalm*

Y'see, the thing about moral rights and wrongs is they're entirely subjective, being based on (you guessed it) the individual's morals and all.

Not everyone shares your morals. Not everyone shares mine either. My conclusion on this matter is just as valid as yours. Please try to be OK with that.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

Snip

I'll concede on Four Lions because I wasn't sure how it was received once it came out. But the fact that a book hasn't been banned since the 1960s doesn't stop my point about banning in schools and certification refusals. If anything that goes to show that even a book, so-called 'legitimate art form' can still be kept censored or denied recognition based on its content. Even once a medium is establish for years as legitimate, it only takes one group to spark controversy and oppose something in the medium. Since the 60s it isn't practical to completely ban a book, but some films have been banned, in multiple countries even. The obvious pseudo-snuff like 'A Serbian Film' and 'Cannibal Holocaust' come to mind, but there are less obvious ones and it goes to show it all depends on who and where.

People don't 'celebrate' every film that hits on a hard subject. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was robbed at the Oscars by several safe, PG-13 or PG Hollywood products in multiple categories, even though critics raved and it did well in the box office WITH its grit and hard-hitting themes. And that same story happens every year.

There's a difference between it not being fun enough and it not working. A good Silent Hill or Amnesia game is terrifying, and emotionally-trying, but 'fun' in the way that the gameplay works and pushes the themes through functioning design.

Comic books and graphic novels are the same damn thing. And you're missing thousands of pages of the past twenty years if you think comic books only utilize metaphors to make points about important issues.

Nonsense. Simple story lines? What comic books are you reading that you think any continuity is simple or only uses mature subjects and issues as side nonsense?

Those whole 'it doesn't get banned, therefor it's legitimate' thing seems entirely arbitrary. The connection is so weightless. This is why I don't like anecdotal arguments.

What gets video games the attraction of ban-crazy legislators and housewives isn't the fact that they're seen as "toys"(lest the super-soakers, Star Wars cartoons about faceless clones running to their deaths, and gritty comic books are all under the same stress and I just haven't noticed). In fact, your point that comic books are still seen as juvenile material by so many would lead one to think there would be even more bans attempted on comic books for the rape, murder, and drug abuse that have been featured in comic books, even big brand names like DC and Marvel. Your other point about games being panned for not being "fun" and that drivel about video games being "accepted" as art(art is expression, there is no acceptance or denial of expression) sheds light on the possibility that games aren't targeted for banning because of the content, but because of their interactive nature; because that "bad" content, which has been in books, film, and television for decades, in video games sees the player in control of a character taking part or bearing witness to them in real time.

Films, books, and television are plenty censored, though. Even after the end of the Hays Code, scripts continue to be rewritten and films edited to keep certain content out of theaters. There was just controversy about a group wanting to take the word "******" out of Huck Finn. That isn't censorship? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is an American classic and to this day it's up for criticism. Video games do not stand alone in this.

 

[axlryder]

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

So you've just admitted that not giving the artist credit for their art is morally wrong. Fine by me. Thanks for forfeiting. That is, unless you'd like to contest the notion that they DO deserve credit.

*facepalm*

Y'see, the thing about moral rights and wrongs is they're entirely subjective, being based on (you guessed it) the individual's morals and all.

Not everyone shares your morals. Not everyone shares mine either. My conclusion on this matter is just as valid as yours. Please try to be OK with that.

I'm sorry, but no. You can't just admit to something, and then just *facepalm* and act like that someone makes your crappy excuse valid. You admitted that YOU would consider that to be morally wrong. If you didn't share that moral perspective then you should learn how to write like someone who can actually convey what they mean. What's more, morals, while subjective, are still subject to scrutiny. Straight up shitting on someone's work by saying it's not something it is? Yeah, you can say "well I don't believe that's wrong", but that's still something an asshole would do. Further still, you're also failing to, again, understand that your question applied to the community as a whole, NOT just you. You asked why should the "community" care. I'm giving you reason why. You also failed to rebut the rest of my quote about the objective wrongness of the mislabeling, making your rebuttal that much worse. Yeah, partial quotes don't make the rest of a rebuttal magically go away. It doesn't matter if I'm "OK" with your views or not, the reality is that you haven't given a single good excuse not to care other than your own laziness, self-interest and apathy. This excuse is nothing more than you not having a decent logical rebuttal, so you chalk it up to subjectivity.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Because art is afforded certain legal privileges.

And because you don't call a dog a fridge.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

So you've just admitted that not giving the artist credit for their art is morally wrong. Fine by me. Thanks for forfeiting. That is, unless you'd like to contest the notion that they DO deserve credit.

*facepalm*

Y'see, the thing about moral rights and wrongs is they're entirely subjective, being based on (you guessed it) the individual's morals and all.

Not everyone shares your morals. Not everyone shares mine either. My conclusion on this matter is just as valid as yours. Please try to be OK with that.

You can facepalm all you want, but that doesn't mean your reasoning isn't absolutely terrible. What's more, you admitted that YOU would consider that to be morally wrong. If you didn't share that moral perspective then you should, again, learn to phrase things better. What's more, morals, while subjective, aren't entirely so. We can all agree that murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Straight up shitting on someone's work by saying it's not something it is? Yeah, you can say "well I don't believe that's wrong", but that's still something an asshole would do. You also failed to rebut the rest of my quote about the objective wrongness of the mislabeling, making your rebuttal that much worse. It doesn't matter if I'm "OK" with your views or not, the reality is that you haven't given a single good excuse not to care other than your own laziness, self-interest and apathy. This excuse is nothing more than you not having a decent logical rebuttal, so you chalk it up to subjectivity.

You are arguing with someone who isn't arguing with you. You are doing so in a childish way. You're Getting angry over nothing. They've told you to calm down and understand the difference between what you think is right and what others think is right and you still blew your top and went into a rant about morality, more or less stating *again* that your opinion is tantamount to fact.

Take a second to think about your comments before you post them.

 

[axlryder]

I think you're failing to make a distinction between moral and absolute wrongs. IMO, failing to "give someone the credit they deserve" is the former, whereas mislabelling a duck is the latter. It's an interesting philosophical discussion in and of itself, I guess, but it would take us a bit off-topic...

So you've just admitted that not giving the artist credit for their art is morally wrong. Fine by me. Thanks for forfeiting. That is, unless you'd like to contest the notion that they DO deserve credit.

*facepalm*

Y'see, the thing about moral rights and wrongs is they're entirely subjective, being based on (you guessed it) the individual's morals and all.

Not everyone shares your morals. Not everyone shares mine either. My conclusion on this matter is just as valid as yours. Please try to be OK with that.

You can facepalm all you want, but that doesn't mean your reasoning isn't absolutely terrible. What's more, you admitted that YOU would consider that to be morally wrong. If you didn't share that moral perspective then you should, again, learn to phrase things better. What's more, morals, while subjective, aren't entirely so. We can all agree that murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Straight up shitting on someone's work by saying it's not something it is? Yeah, you can say "well I don't believe that's wrong", but that's still something an asshole would do. You also failed to rebut the rest of my quote about the objective wrongness of the mislabeling, making your rebuttal that much worse. It doesn't matter if I'm "OK" with your views or not, the reality is that you haven't given a single good excuse not to care other than your own laziness, self-interest and apathy. This excuse is nothing more than you not having a decent logical rebuttal, so you chalk it up to subjectivity.

You are arguing with someone who isn't arguing with you. You are doing so in a childish way. You're Getting angry over nothing. They've told you to calm down and understand the difference between what you think is right and what others think is right and you still blew your top and went into a rant about morality, more or less stating *again* that your opinion is tantamount to fact.

Take a second to think about your comments before you post them.

First of all, I am calm. I'm merely being direct in my phrasing. Your presumption in assuming I'm not in a state of "calmness" is foolishly unwarranted.

Secondly, he partial quoted me, missing half of the argument he's responding to. Your failure to take this into account makes you just as bad as him. What's more, he initiated the debate, don't give me some garbage about him "not debating". Even if he chose to bow out, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly not going to rebut his final claim.

Thirdly, my "opinion" here is commonly accepted social norm. You can't simply be rude to people and chalk that up to subjective views on right and wrong. You're causing unwarranted emotional pain in a person that could be averted based entirely on your own actions. If you don't consider that "objectively" wrong then fine, but it makes logical sense to do so.

Lastly, since you have yet to actually contribute any kind of valid input into this conversation other than the same unwarranted condescension as the dude you're defending, you're being equally useless here.

Take as second to think before butting in where you don't belong.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Games are not art. They are not created to communicate something only as a product to make money. Regardless how they look doesnt matter.

They made some games that were band. Like that Columbine massacre game. That was art as it was communication on a subject.

 

[Auron225]

I dont think its so much "I want them to see video-games as art and appreciate them as I do", but more a case of "Stop calling what Im doing stupid and pointless and realise I like/enjoy/appreciate it enough to call it art". Also its giving credit to the people that write awesome stories, design the realistic-looking characters and create the awe-inspiring graphics. To call what they're doing childish and silly is really sad in my opinion, and generally does come from people that havent tried gaming even once before.

So I guess its more a means of defense against gaming-haters than anything else.