Games will never be accepted as an art form
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Right off the bat I dont know where youve been for the last 5 years but everyone from 'The Guardian' to 'Time' magazine accepts games have already produced specimens of high artistic merit. I dont know how you define accepted but I challenge you to come up with a way they havent been accepted as an art form.retyopy said:
Secondly, pretty much the only workable definition of art is that it inspires heavy debate as too whether it's actually art or not. So in a way, this thread just adds to the colossal (and mounting) pile of evidence.
If we were to replace all the gameplay with cutscenes, then you would have taken away the artistic advantage of videogames. Videogames, as an interactive art form, focus more on immersion, and therefore require gameplay. I often end up feeling much more attached to the world and characters in a video game than I ever have in film. I guess we are just going to have to get more people playing and try to share our medium.
"art : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1292602796
Art is just creativity in the sense you're using it in. It really doesn't matter if a bunch of people don't view it as an "art." What exactly do you mean by that anyway? You mostly just said crude and vulgar things.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1292602796
Art is just creativity in the sense you're using it in. It really doesn't matter if a bunch of people don't view it as an "art." What exactly do you mean by that anyway? You mostly just said crude and vulgar things.
I have to agree with this.ChupathingyX said:
It's like the alternate reality games Valve does. I never paid any attention to the alternate reality stuff, yet I still loved the Portal games and had fun playing them. Doesn't mean someone else can't go the extra mile and do the whole alternate reality thing.
Lonan said:
LordXel said:
Kurai Angelo said:
Yopaz said:
The OC was being SARCASTIC with his title, read his post.arc1991 said:Don't know about you...but this looks like art...
Games may not be classed as art (because they don't need to be) but they produce some beautiful images, just type in any game, your bound to find a beautiful image which could easily pass off as art.
Why does it need to be accepted as an art form by the public at large? It doesn't make it any less an art form in reality.
I know it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong.
Yeah.
It already is accepted as an art form. By artists and governments alike.
Also, games fit the technical definition of art.
And just because the gameplay part of games isn't art as we know it, that's because it's new. New =/= Inferior. You might recall several decades ago when film was also never going to be considered an art form. Look how that turned out.
So yeah. Nicely worded and I see where you're coming from, but sorry, your viewpoint is simply erroneous. Now, if you don't think games are art, that's different, but saying they will never be accepted as art is wrong. Incorrect.
Yeah.
It already is accepted as an art form. By artists and governments alike.
Also, games fit the technical definition of art.
And just because the gameplay part of games isn't art as we know it, that's because it's new. New =/= Inferior. You might recall several decades ago when film was also never going to be considered an art form. Look how that turned out.
So yeah. Nicely worded and I see where you're coming from, but sorry, your viewpoint is simply erroneous. Now, if you don't think games are art, that's different, but saying they will never be accepted as art is wrong. Incorrect.
I don't care if Ebert or the politicians or the media consider games art. I consider games art. Not all games, but there are plenty out there that qualify in some way. So, screw the pretentious bastards that scoff at video games as art. They haven't a clue what they are talking about and will surely be seen in the future as the ignorant fools that they are. Don't believe me. Look at Elvis and Rock n' Roll. Once upon a time, "people" thought they were indecent and of "the Devil". Would you listen to anyone who suggested that today?
Have not seen a moving story really I know many cried becuase of ICO or screamed with anger when someone kill hurt the main of a game.Generic Gamer said:
Kagim's guide to something being art...
Step one: Make something.
Step two: As the creator, declare it is art.
Step three: Realize that something being art is not a matter of subjectivity. Everything that is created can be an art if the creator of it deems it so. Also realize that just because it's art doesn't mean it can't be a steaming pile of donkey dicks slow roasted over an open fire of horse shit with a creamy walrus semen sauce.
Seriously people. It's not that hard. Art doesn't need redefining. Art is merely a creation. You will ALWAYS ALWAYS AL-FUCKING-WAYS have detractors in ANY medium saying X isn't art.
That's how people work. They see something that isn't the same as them and their definition and deny it. That is completely normal.
In this case, you also have to realize the grand majority of people couldn't fucking care less. This is essentially a case of one minority group bitching and whining at another minority group. Just like the vast majority of people don't read a book or watch a movie then spend twenty minutes debating whether it's art or not. It doesn't fucking matter.
Step one: Make something.
Step two: As the creator, declare it is art.
Step three: Realize that something being art is not a matter of subjectivity. Everything that is created can be an art if the creator of it deems it so. Also realize that just because it's art doesn't mean it can't be a steaming pile of donkey dicks slow roasted over an open fire of horse shit with a creamy walrus semen sauce.
Seriously people. It's not that hard. Art doesn't need redefining. Art is merely a creation. You will ALWAYS ALWAYS AL-FUCKING-WAYS have detractors in ANY medium saying X isn't art.
That's how people work. They see something that isn't the same as them and their definition and deny it. That is completely normal.
In this case, you also have to realize the grand majority of people couldn't fucking care less. This is essentially a case of one minority group bitching and whining at another minority group. Just like the vast majority of people don't read a book or watch a movie then spend twenty minutes debating whether it's art or not. It doesn't fucking matter.
Video games are art. That much is pretty much indisputable fact; I have not yet seen a single argument that gives any real reason to think otherwise. I've seen some good and well-thought-out arguments, but none of them hold up under scrutiny. They are art. It's just a matter of time.
Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "game," but we don't need to change anything in how we make them to qualify, or eventually be culturally recognized, as art. We should expand what games are capable of, sure, and we've started to do so: visual novels like Clannad and interactive dramas like Heavy Rain have already pushed those boundaries, but still technically fall pretty squarely into both the categories of "video game" and "story." Interactive story, for that matter. But then, so do Mass Effect, Bioshock, Beyond Good and Evil, even games like Mario. Games do not need to change to be art, because they already are. Whether that fact is culturally accepted is simply a matter of time.
And to those saying it doesn't matter whether video games are considered art or not, you obviously don't know about the recent Supreme Court case, else you wouldn't be saying something so blatantly stupid. We really need to put the "I just want to have fun, so why does it matter" argument to bed; it's entirely self-centered and has absolutely no regard for the medium as a whole, which, ironically enough, does affect you pretty intensely. It affects us all intensely. It's time we stop being lazy, selfish idiots and start standing up for our medium.
Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "game," but we don't need to change anything in how we make them to qualify, or eventually be culturally recognized, as art. We should expand what games are capable of, sure, and we've started to do so: visual novels like Clannad and interactive dramas like Heavy Rain have already pushed those boundaries, but still technically fall pretty squarely into both the categories of "video game" and "story." Interactive story, for that matter. But then, so do Mass Effect, Bioshock, Beyond Good and Evil, even games like Mario. Games do not need to change to be art, because they already are. Whether that fact is culturally accepted is simply a matter of time.
And to those saying it doesn't matter whether video games are considered art or not, you obviously don't know about the recent Supreme Court case, else you wouldn't be saying something so blatantly stupid. We really need to put the "I just want to have fun, so why does it matter" argument to bed; it's entirely self-centered and has absolutely no regard for the medium as a whole, which, ironically enough, does affect you pretty intensely. It affects us all intensely. It's time we stop being lazy, selfish idiots and start standing up for our medium.
I think that games can be art, are art, and will eventually be accepted as art. But it's going to take a while before people realize that games aren't just children's toys and that they can be as expressive and artistic as any other medium.
For example, people consider that film is an art form. There will always be those There Will Be Bloods and there will always be those Conan the Barbarians. It can have the thoughtful, provocative works, and it can also have the fun, popcorn flicks. It's the same with games. There will always be those Bioshocks and those EDF: Insect Armageddons.
Plus, I don't know why many gamers think that having artistic qualities in games makes them less fun. That makes no sense. I hate to bring out the overused Bioshock card again, but it's the best example. That game was ridiculously fun, and it had a great, thoughtful story. That line of reasoning that games can't be fun and art at the same time makes no sense.
For example, people consider that film is an art form. There will always be those There Will Be Bloods and there will always be those Conan the Barbarians. It can have the thoughtful, provocative works, and it can also have the fun, popcorn flicks. It's the same with games. There will always be those Bioshocks and those EDF: Insect Armageddons.
Plus, I don't know why many gamers think that having artistic qualities in games makes them less fun. That makes no sense. I hate to bring out the overused Bioshock card again, but it's the best example. That game was ridiculously fun, and it had a great, thoughtful story. That line of reasoning that games can't be fun and art at the same time makes no sense.
Honestly, "art" is just a word. An intangible, subjective concept. If games aren't art, what are they? Toys? I doubt that. Maybe games are better than art. Maybe in a few years, "art" will be passé, and artists will all be clamouring to attain the label of "interactive experience", or whatever new label that games take on, if not "art".retyopy said:
