Games as art.

[ShinyCharizard]

To be honest I'm not looking to start a discussion here. Instead merely to put to words my thoughts on the matter.

It seems when discussing games as an art form, many use examples of games that are similar
to films in the way they deliver a story (Mass Effect series, The Witcher II, Uncharted and more) or merely experimental (many indie titles ect, Journey, Flower, ect). Critics of course say games are not art because they cannot deliver emotion like films.

Why must we use the merits of a different art form like film and apply them to gaming? A very different medium. Would we compare Films to Paintings? Or consider only those games that are being a bit different/experimental?

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.

 

[Eleuthera]

I don't think the discussion is that all games are art, but that games can be art.

Critics of course say games are not art because they cannot deliver emotion like films.

Then those critics don't know what they're talking about. Games can evoke emotion, just as much as films do not always do (unless apathy counts). Even "real art" such as van Gogh's painting will not evoke emotions in everyone, personally I couldn't care less about those damn sunflowers, but I hear very few people say he wasn't an artist.

 

[Zhukov]

2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

 

[UrinalDook]

I still don't see why games need to be classified as art.

They don't.

Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years?

We can.

Why does it need to be seen as art?

It doesn't.

I don't think the discussion is that all games are art, but that games can be art.

^This.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing games as pure entertainment. But every now and again, a game comes along that does something very different with the medium and there are those of us who appreciate a break with convention. All I would say is that if people want to make games that aren't necessarily fun, and are 'doing it for the art', then let them. And let everyone that appreciates them call it 'art' if it feels like 'art' to them.

And I would view going completely the other way and saying games should never be art to be just as bad. Games are different things to different people. For me, they're one of the most immersive ways to tell a story, and story will always be my priority. But I can appreciate a game that's all about pure fun (for me, that's games like Fifa, Peggle and COD multiplayer) as much as I can appreciate a game that's asking you to think about it, rather than enjoy it (for me, Spec Ops and I suppose KotOR 2 to a lesser extent), and then there are those games that are just... arty (Journey).

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Like Zhukov said, what the fuck is art? Nobody ever defines it in these posts, and there isn't a solid definition that everyone can agree on. Until there is, these discussions are pretty pointless. Are they art to you? Then yay, they're art. Just like lots of people don't consider paintings of a dot, or a line, art. The whole thing is totally subjective.

 

[DoPo]

2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

I'm completely with you here. On every point. Are movies art? How can you tell? I literature art? That would include newspapers, you know. Are games art? Are they not? How do you distinguish between the two?

CAPTCHA: carbon-copy
Are you suggesting that this thread is not original at all and is the thousandth rerun of this topic on this site alone?

 

[gorfias]

I can't write I know what art is. A term people used to use is, will it stand the test of time? I think, almost sadly, that is hokum. My own kids have no idea what "Citizne Kane" is, but their ignorance hardly makes CK less a piece of art. I also read recently that art paintings are likely not a good investment. The piece went on to describe a painter that was all the rage in the 19th century. Now you could pay to hang one of his works from your refrigerator. Again, our ignorance doesn't mean the artist was less one.

On the other hand,

let everyone that appreciates them call it 'art' if it feels like 'art' to them.

Also a problematic definition, especially if a government subsidizes what someone subjectively calls art. 60 Minutes did a piece on modern art, including that someone willingly paid $350 K for a platform covered in packets of various sweetners. I wanted to find the "artist" and kick in in the knee cap.

In the end, I can't say what art is, but if I'm paying for it with my own money, I'll define it thanks.

In the 1970s I had a console that did nothing but play variations of pong. Someone thought the the sound of the blip striking surfaces or being returned sounded aesthetically pleasing if it were "just so". I'll call that art.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

This is basically my opinion. Art, by definition, is subjective. What may be a deep, thought-provoking, artful game could be pretentious wank to others, for example.

Because of this, I don't think games should be aiming to be considered "art." I'm not saying that some of these "art" games can't be good (I liked Dear Esther, and Journey was fantastic), or that we should not try to push the boundaries of what we think we can do in games, but if developers specifically try to be "art," it's way to easy to forget why people like playing games in the first place. Just try to make a game that accomplishes what you want it to, and do what's best for that game.

 

[veloper]

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Sometimes "Art" is used to mean of great significance. Pretty only applies to our decoration.

The only objective way to approach the quality of Art is by looking at it's monetary value. Art is worth what the fool will give for it and you cannot argue against money.

 

[roushutsu]

I believe that gaming can be seen as an artistic medium, and we have several examples of that already (granted, mostly on the indie side). But that doesn't mean that all games are art. Most games are not art and never will be, which is perfectly fine. Most of the games I play are not art games, but I do like to delve into one every now and again. A game doesn't have to be all artsy fartsy in order for it to mean anything in the long run.

 

[DoPo]

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

 

[veloper]

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

 

[DoPo]

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

You blew my mind. I never actually made the connection between that and "artefact". Also, I may be a bit oblivious when it comes to words.

 

[veloper]

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

You blew my mind. I never actually made the connection between that and "artefact". Also, I may be a bit oblivious when it comes to words.

It's all ars (latin). Skill. But this bores me. I want to pick a fight over something.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

In a world where an unmade bed, a starving dog chained to a wall, and a cured shark can all be considered art, the matter of whether or not games can be considered art is not even worth discussing.

Can games be art? Yes.

Why? Because I say so, and art has no definition beyond 'What people think is art'.

Will games being accepted as art make any kind of difference to the games themselves? No, it will not.

 

[Fappy]

2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

People have been trying to define art for centuries. I'm not convinced we'll ever find an answer everyone is happy with >.>

 

[Legion]

Considering that people can put a brick on a pedestal (literally) and claim it's art worth paying to go into a gallery for why would you even want games to be considered art?

Calling something art frequently tends to bring out the pretentious types who like to act like something has a far greater significance than it actually has. Who then act superior because they "get it" while normal, sane people realise it's actually just a cynical move by somebody who realised that they could actually make money from sticking a brick on a pedestal.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

To paraphrase Ken Cosgrove from the second season of Mad Men when he sees an abstract painting: "You've got to feel something about [the painting], maybe that is what makes it art." If we go on the basic definition that art is something created with a message and with the intention to stir thoughts and/or emotions, then yes certainly games can be art. That doesn't mean all games are art though.

 

[TehCookie]

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?

They need to be classified as art for legal reasons to maintain their freedom of speech or something. Which there was a supreme court case on it in the US a while back and they passed so games are legally art. I think people need to realize calling games art won't make them more accepted and mature.