Games as Art--- Why do you think so?

[TBC]

I presume that everyone on this website would say that games are art (me included), my question is why do we think this. I'm a philosophy student and I want to write a paper about why videogames should be considered art. I just want to have a discussion about why we think that games are art and get some tangible reasons to write about.

Thanks

 

[Kahunaburger]

Same reason pottery is art - they are things made by human beings designed to elicit a reaction from other human beings.

 

[Hal10k]

Because game design is essentially just architecture with the added benefit of being able to disregard structural physics and throw in an explosion whenever things get boring.

 

[endtherapture]

Painting is art.

How is designing even the texture for a videogame any different from that? Let alone the entire thing.

 

[TBC]

I think that it is important to remember the interactivity of a game, it is a level of interactivity that no other medium can reach, as we know. The problem that I see is that it can be difficult to say that a game is a work of art when it depends on others playing it, in order to actually bring about the experience. A painting, or a book doesn't actually require someone to see or read it for it to be realized (except the artist). I think some might make the case that because of this and also there is a problem with saying a developer has created a piece of art when it has to be played and will always be played differently by different people, and even the same person on repeat play throughs. This is unlike a painting or a film that will always be the same, only the perception of it will change.

These together may seem like a problem but I think it actually helps our case, we just have to accept that the player contributes to the artistic merit of a game. Each game can be an artistic experience as long as there are players to interact with it. This also allows us to give an important role to the player which can explain why we believe that developers should treat us with respect. I am not at all playing down the role that developers play in the artistic process, it just seems to me that we cannot argue that a game without a player can be a work of art.

 

[crappingpegasus]

while I think some games could be looked at as art, the vast majority of are made with money in mind.

as such, there are a lot of missed opportunities for greatness in the name of lower budgets, faster ship dates and appeal to wider audiences.

that said, art is also relative, so really, it's your call at the end of the day.

 

[TehCookie]

Art is suppose to invoke an emotion, seeing how that is the purpose of some games I'd call that art. I wouldn't say all gamers are art though, some are just those stupid action flicks you like to watch/play but others are generally touching.

Also fuck you Persona 3 for treating my emotions like a puppet! It's so good I couldn't help but feel moved playing it and I can say that game did a far better job at it than most books or movies or any other artform.

 

[TBC]

Well we could just say some games are art but just bad art, we don't really have a problem with doing this for any other art form, which ones you believe are artistic at the end of the day is up to you but there must be some criteria that something has to fulfill in order to be considered art.

I don't think that we can say that something designed to create emotion can be enough though because there are many things that we design to provoke emotion that we would never say are art. A clear example is something like hate speech. This is designed by people (not very nice people) to provoke negative emotions towards a certain group of people, but this is not art.

Provocation of emotion has to have something to do with it but is not enough on its own.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Same reason pottery is art - they are things made by human beings designed to elicit a reaction from other human beings.

I more or less agree, but IMO the games themselves are not art.

They are the medium through which one can express art. It are the themes the artist wishes to express, the reactions he tries to evoke in others and the means by which he achieves those goals that are art.

How is designing even the texture for a videogame any different from that? Let alone the entire thing.

Because, while it takes craftsmanship to create one, a texture has no more purpose or intention than covering a wall. It's essentially the same as wallpaper. It's not the texture that is art, it's what you do with it.

Of course, that all depends on your definition of art.

 

[TBC]

I agree that intention has to be one of the most important parts of any definition of art, whether it be about games or paintings. Art has to be about something, in other words it has to express some intention, it has to express a thought. Otherwise we could give the label of art to as sunset or some paint that has fallen on a canvas, both things may turn out to be beautiful but they express no thought.

Another thought might be that it actually matters whether or not the development team bring across their intention in a way that is understood, and if their intention is not understood then they have not created art. This could happen as a result of many things, broken game mechanics, glitches, in fact any reason why we believe a game isn't good. I think there is something to be said for the artist needing to succeed at least to some degree in expressing the intended thought/thoughts.

 

[DoPo]

OP, what is art? What connects the Iliad to Citizen Kane? What is the similarity between the works of Leonardo DaVinci and Beethoven? How is music like a painting or a statue? What makes both Dada and Baroque share the same title of "artistic"?

Answer those questions and find a way not to include the video games, or rather the interactive entertainment medium. Movies include a series of images and sound telling a story. A video game does the same. A book is a story in written form. The same can be said about the interactive fiction. The music uses sounds to convey emotions to the listeners. Don't you feel nothing when you hear "Hey. Hey, listen!"?

And so on and so forth.

In the end, isn't "art" whatever we say it is? If so, then there is no reason not to call video games "art". After all, you said it yourself - people on this website would do it. So if some can call Dada "art", then we can call video games "art", too.

 

[Asita]

Do you consider literature art? Do you consider movies art? Theatre? To me there is little difference between the artistic status of these mediums and gaming (at least in the case of those which tell a story, as those are most similar to the aforementioned categories). If you consider storytelling to be an art, then I see little reason why any of the above should not be considered a form of artistic expression.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Same reason pottery is art - they are things made by human beings designed to elicit a reaction from other human beings.

I more or less agree, but IMO the games themselves are not art.

They are the medium through which one can express art. It are the themes the artist wishes to express, the reactions he tries to evoke in others and the means by which he achieves those goals that are art.

How is designing even the texture for a videogame any different from that? Let alone the entire thing.

Because, while it takes craftsmanship to create one, a texture has no more purpose or intention than covering a wall. It's essentially the same as wallpaper. It's not the texture that is art, it's what you do with it.

Of course, that all depends on your definition of art.

My take on this is that wallpaper, a wallpapered room, and performance art conducted in that wallpapered room count as art. "Art" is a really broad category.

 

[SoranMBane]

Because games have every requirement they need in order to fit into my definition of art (which I've handily jacked from Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto); they recreate some sort of experience, and they reflect the values of their creators. Every accepted form of art does this; music recreates moods and emotions through the use of sound, literature recreates scenarios using language, illustrations and sculpture recreate images using colours and shapes, and film, theatre, and games all aim to recreate a fuller experience using some combination of sound, imagery, and language. The difference with games is that they're interactive, so not only are the artist's values being expressed in the work, but the audience's as well through the decisions they make as they play.

 

[Scrustle]

Games are art. But I'm not 100% certain on what I define art as. I tend to believe games are art because they have the potential to comment on the human condition, are a form of self expression and require a specific talent to be able to create. When I try to define art those are the 3 things that I tend to focus on. By that definition not all games are art, but they exist in an art form.

 

[karcentric]

Art is just how well you can explain something... hence why minimalism art is deemed art. No effort and a fancy speech, if I had to choose a game that had the most decorative design, I'd say the Bioshock series.

 

[DoPo]

games are made by artists, that doesnt make games art, if Leonardo made a sandwich it was food not art, if artists make digital entertainment then thats what it is

This is MY PERSONAL opinion, so dont tell me im wrong.

The words you've typed there - they are devoid of any real sense.

It is my personal opinion and you cannot tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Some games have a lot of great art in them, but I'd be hard pressed to call any of the games I've played art, themselves. It's possible to argue from the position that games can be considered art, but that's not generally what they are created to be.