Games as art.

[DioWallachia]

As I have said before: It depends how you define art.

I define art as "something designed to evoke emotions".

By that definition, yes, games can be art and are already are art, and have been since conception.

Isnt that too broad of a definition? i mean, Transformers 2 and Twilight evoke in me the emotion of anger that would make a Misantrophe Supreme turn green with envy. They also evoke confidence in my by ilustrating that i will die smarter than everyone else on this planet.

But i wont call those movies art for it, would i? Neither i will praise a horror movie that uses JUMP SCARES to evoke fear in me.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

Because it's not so much about games being classified as art as it is people believing such a classification will instantaneously award the credibility they believe such a classification should merit. They believe, if games were classed as a legitimate art form (who makes that decision anyway?), it would stop all the people who blame video games for pretty much everything that's wrong with the world (it won't, mind you).

The problem is, games aren't quite there yet. Granted, we're not as bad as a lot of people try to make us out to be, but there are certain segments of our community that really need to be fixed before we're ready to be given the same legitimacy as films, music or books. However, too many people believe the legitimacy should just be a god-given right, and no effort on the games side needs to be made to earn that right. That just isn't possible: we're never going to be in a situation where everything stays the same except for the stuff we don't like. That has already been proven: we wanted everyone to enjoy games, it happened, but we weren't happy because they weren't playing the games we wanted them to play. We want games to be taken more seriously, but when it does, we throw a hissy fit because someone dares to talk negatively about our games. I'm sorry, but gaming really has a lot to do before it deserves the recognition of films, books, and music.

As I have said before: It depends how you define art.

I define art as "something designed to evoke emotions".

By that definition, yes, games can be art and are already are art, and have been since conception.

Isnt that too broad of a definition? i mean, Transformers 2 and Twilight evoke in me the emotion of anger that would make a Misantrophe Supreme turn green with envy. They also evoke confidence in my by ilustrating that i will die smarter than everyone else on this planet.

But i wont call those movies art for it, would i? Neither i will praise a horror movie that uses JUMP SCARES to evoke fear in me.

Well they are art. Something being considered art doesn't automatically make that thing brilliant or even good. It is whether you consider something to be good art or bad art. After all, it all comes down to opinion: you might not like Transformers 2 or Twilight, but a lot of people do.

 

[lacktheknack]

As I have said before: It depends how you define art.

I define art as "something designed to evoke emotions".

By that definition, yes, games can be art and are already are art, and have been since conception.

Isnt that too broad of a definition? i mean, Transformers 2 and Twilight evoke in me the emotion of anger that would make a Misantrophe Supreme turn green with envy. They also evoke confidence in my by ilustrating that i will die smarter than everyone else on this planet.

But i wont call those movies art for it, would i? Neither i will praise a horror movie that uses JUMP SCARES to evoke fear in me.

No, they're art.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "good" art, or even "acceptable" art (as they evoked emotions opposite to what they were supposed to evoke), but they're still art, in much the same way that <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ>Piss Christ is still art.

 

[Zanderinfal]

*Snipped due to long comment, find it at post 5 on page 1*

I absolutely agree with everything this guy said, read it if you haven't already. We don't NEED games to be art at all, but games can be (like ICO, SoTC, The Last Guardian and Journey) if they are made in a particular way.

I personally don't want to call games like the fantastic Half-Life series as "art" in any way. As good as some games are, they do not need to be called art. What about games like the original Doom series or Painkiller (the games where it is just shooting things for fun)? Can't we just say "it's a game where you shoot stuff, the end."

I feel it's a little unnecessary. However I do want to see more "artish" games, similar to Team ICOs work. I for one love games in that have that sort of style, but calling all games art is stupid in my honest opinion.

*RANT OVER*

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

Also please explain to me why these games are juvenile and lack depth or meaning?

Also universal truth?? Sounds like some meta bullshit to me. The kind of thing art critics say in order to make themselves feel relevant.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

You might wanna take an English as a second language course then. Cause if you can't follow what I'm saying, learn to read.

In that case please explain your posts more clearly. You are simply writing meaningless drivel without explanation and blaming others when they say they don't understand it.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

You might wanna take an English as a second language course then. Cause if you can't follow what I'm saying, learn to read.

In that case please explain your posts more clearly. You are simply writing meaningless drivel without explanation and blaming others when they say they don't understand it.

I'm blaming you because you managed to miss words that change the entire meaning of phrases. Like the word even.

Again explain to me these words I have missed. While you are at it please explain this universal truth you refer to that supposedly art must contain in order to be considered art.

 

[DioWallachia]

And how can Superman 64 be a Dada piece isntead of just plain old incompetence and executive meddling? Wont a deconstruction like Spec Ops The Line be a Dada work?

And how do you manage to mistake an extreme example, chosen for the fact that its extreme and tenuous, for the rock solid example?

Because i am not saying "How can YOU say that Superman be blah blah?", i am saying "How can Superman 64 be blah blah?" as in what kind of scenario one could see Superman 64 as a Dada. A retorical.

Final Fantasy VI has a theme being play out before your eyes, the theme of love or be loved (different kinds of love), and we see different characters reacting their way to such thing. If there is any doubt about that, then let this guy fill you in: (Warning, 3 hours video incoming)

So therefor eit comes close. But, lacking as it does the loss, it fails to cover love as well as FF VII does witht he loss of Aerith. If you had said FF VII, maybe that would work for art, but since you said VI, no.

Actually, FF VI covers more about love in general rather than the love on FF VII or FF VIII (where it was only more of an ackward teenage kind of love). The theme of love (i think i should have used the words "The joy of living") even affected the antagonist Kefka. If you want the short version, just watch the video at 2:58:30 where he tries to explain how Kefka is unique for having a Character Anti-Arc thanks of not being able to enjoy living as everyone else.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

So your entire argument is based upon the fact that I misunderstood your use of the word "even"? all right then..........

I'm still waiting for an explantion of this universal truth you refer to?

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Also are you seriously suggesting these games contain no meaning, depth or feeling because they have been built using a system of logic?

So the designers of games cannot impart any depth, feeling or passion that they have into their work without it being illogical? That argument is just insane.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

No, simplistic games like the kind you gave as examples do not give complete multilayered emotions, just simplistic reactions. Mild contentedness and low-level thrills.

So my emotions are simplistic and not multi-layered? And those games were my examples. I specifically stated it would be different for everbody. And for the record please explain to me what a complex multi-layered emotion is?