Games as Art

[wammnebu]

christ not this thread again!

1. games as art is backward thinking because for something to be considered art means you have to define it, and to define it you have to look back and deem certain works in the past as art.

2. games as art must "champion an idea" so rather than encouraging people to experiment with game techniques and design choices, you will get more big headed kids in themes of isolation
or maybe an rpg that "explores" homosexuality and whatever political issues of the day are

why would you enforce stagnation on a budding medium, make the games fun and engaging, and the art will come naturally

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Jesus, are we going to have this exact post every single week? I thought the Extra Credits episode would quiet everyone down. But then again, I am posting on it, so maybe I should shut up.

Anyway, I'll just write down what I've put down before. Video game, as a medium, is art. Therefore, all games are art. Not "just" Bioshock. Not "just" Planescape. Not "just" Shadow of the Colossus. Every. Single. Game. That includes Halo, Gears of War, Bulletstorm, Duke Nukem, you name it.

Now, I believe that the definition of art, vaguely and generally speaking, is any kind of a created work that illicit emotion and meaning to a person after contact with said work. But art refers to a certain medium, not specific work. There's no way you can simply say one thing's art and the other isn't. It's too subjective, and can be construed differently by different people.

What people refer to when they look at games and say, "This one's art and this one's entertainment", they're really saying "This one's good art and this one's shitty, piss-poor example of a burgeoning art form and should be rotting in a landfill somewhere out on the dark side of the moon."

/angry rant

To be fair, Extra Credits brings it up week after week so it's only natural for this topic to appear so often. If they'd give it a rest for a bit, maybe we wouldn't be inundated with "Games as art" topics all over the place.

If the Extra Credits crew reads this by some chance, we get it, give the art topic up for a while, please. I'd say most of us are sick of it by now. You can go back to it later but a few weeks without mentioning it will do wonders for your goal. Remember, absence makes the heart grow fonder.

 

[ultrachicken]

Considering how developing a game involves drawing, painting, composing, writing, and more, I think they should be considered art.

 

[lemiel14n3]

As Gelett Burgess (according to a Google search) famously said "I don't know art, but I know what I like." And really, to question whether games have the potential to become art (I would argue that there are many games out there that already ARE art, or at the very least artistic[the distinction is mostly academic, but it does exist]) is really quite pointless, of course games have the potential to become art, why are we even still asking this question.

As for a game I consider art, well there's a lot of them... Ocarina of Time, Half Life 2, Portal, Bioshock, Mass Effect 2, Lumi, Beyond Good and Evil, God of War.
And then there are a bunch of games that had artistic elements, I've been playing Mirrors Edge recently, very pretty game.

Some games keep me thinking, but is that what makes them art? If so, the bar for something being art is incredibly low, and pretty much everything is or can be art, rendering the term meaningless.

There are people who will debate and discuss that topic with you all day, one of the fundamental aspects of calling something art, is determining what the hell art is. Most go with the tried and true philosophy of "it's art if someone tells me it's art".

I don't really understand the whole "games are art!" thing anyway. I don't think of any game as art, frankly, they're entertainment. Sure they can be deeper than just something to mindlessly pass time with, but entertainment is the #1 goal here. Why do people want games to be considered art anyway?

Alright, distinction time I personally, I won't claim to speak for or represent gamers as a whole, don't want all games to be art. there are times when I simply want to blow an aliens head off without having to consider the larger meaning to the conflict or the artistic intent. I want to have Mario jump from platform to platform, without having to wonder why he must. What I do want is for the POTENTIAL of games to be realized. I want people to be able to look at games as a medium, not a toy. I want it to stand with any medium, film, theater, literature. Sure I love the Godfather movies, they're works of art(well, the first two are anyway) but that doesn't mean that there isn't also room in my heart for Animal House. There's room for Hamlet and A Funny Thing Happened on My Way to the Forum.

I want Video Games to stand on the same platform as all other media, as a market for art and entertainment. and in a way that's already starting The Smithsonian [http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/] is doing an exhibition entitled The Art of Video Games [http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/]. It's the beginning of something big

That and it's much easier to act like a pretentious douche bag when you talking about ART. And there's something undeniably fun about pretending you're better than everyone else.

clipped, because it's long

Alright, I think you argument is... let's go with flawed. let's start by addressing a few points.

Yeah, people doing what they enjoy are having fun, have you ever seen a man who loves Mozart attend a performance of The Magic Flute you can't possibly say that they aren't having a blast. judging by your post, you'd probably be bored to tears, neither of your experiences are invalid.

Alright, if you look at a painting and you have a pretty good idea of what it's about in a single glance, then good on you, move on to the next one. But it's a waste of your money and your time. appreciate the effort, some artists do just draw fruit. But really look at a Van Gogh, take time to appreciate the subtle intricacies of the brush strokes. the little things interwoven into each piece.

And yeah, if games ever are widely considered as art, a whole hipster subculture is going to spring up, but there's an easy solution, ignore them, they spring up, they latch on to whatever's big and try to convince you that that's the opposite of what they're doing. Just ignore them


I think the largest problem that you have is a rather narrow definition of what exactly art is. To you (and I may be wrong here, but I rarely am) art consists entirely of dusty paintings hanging on walls, of incomprehensible operas, of books too long to bother reading. And while all those things are art, art is something much more than that. Art reaches out and helps you to see, art enriches not just your mind but your soul. No man goes unchanged by art, however subtly, art improves us. Either by making us consider our place, or helping us understand the reality of others. Art is the truly sublime, the greatest vestige of the divine encased within all of humanity. From the campiest folk song to the most elaborate aria, from the simple scribbles of a child to the brush strokes of a master of his craft. Art suffuses and elevates us and all that we are. And I sincerely hope that that the medium that I have grown up with and come to love is given the same opportunity, to enrich not just gamers, but all mankind.

Wow, that's an Oscar speech right there, I'd like to thank the Academy, and the English teachers who helped me refine my overly romantic bullshit to a diamond shine. Now I hope more people check out this thread, because that was awesome.

 

[jamesworkshop]

For me to call videogames art would be the same as to call the art gallery a piece of art in itself because it contains pieces of art

 

[Vonnis]

@lemiel14n3
You make some interesting points here. I believe you're right in saying my idea of what constitutes art is somewhat narrowminded. Though it doesn't have to be dusty and boring, I do tend to lean towards more 'classical' arts in my appreciation. A lot of modern art often strikes me as something made to look interesting, but it doesn't hit any nerve with me, emotionally or intellectually. So yes, maybe I'm an art conservative.
Another thing I only realised after having read your post is that I'm using two different definitions of the word fun. To stay with your example, I would say that during a rendition of Mozart's work I would actually enjoy it, but I wouldn't be having fun. The reason for this is that I tend to think of "fun" as the laughing, fist-pumping, "Fuck yeah!" shouting kind of enjoyment. You just don't see that very often with classical music. What I'd experience there would probably be hardly noticeable except maybe in my eyes, and maybe a smile. It's the quiet, contemplative, wide-eyed, "this is too awesome for me to physically react in any way" enjoyment I get when something really connects on a deeper emotional or intellectual level.
Bottom line: turns out it really did boil down to semantics (and, as always, personal opinion).

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Ok, I know I'm probably late to the party and this may not be the place to ask but....Why does it matter if games are considered art or not?