Games will never be accepted as an art form

Recommended Videos

dave.k

New member
Mar 7, 2008
12
0
0
Never say never, as the phrase goes.

A new art form always encounters resistance by the current generation of the time. It's the new generation which grows up with that art form, that will accept it more readily. Give it 20 years, and it'll be considered art.

Well, at least some indie titles will be considered art. Other games are generally too tainted by commercialism to be considered artistic (ICO et al being the obvious exceptions). Although, I suppose Andy Warhol may disagree on this slant.
 

GameMaNiAC

New member
Sep 8, 2010
599
0
0
Cheshire the Cat said:
art
noun /ärt
arts, plural

1: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
- the art of the Renaissance
- great art is concerned with moral imperfections
- she studied art in Paris

2: Works produced by such skill and imagination
- his collection of modern art
- an exhibition of Mexican art
- an art critic

3: Creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture
- she's good at art

4: The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance
- the visual arts
- the art of photography

5: Subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects)
- the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible
- the Faculty of Arts

6: A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice
- the art of conversation


Videogames definitely fall under a couple of those categories so yes, videogames are obviously art. And not just the stupid pansy ass "Artsy" games either. ALL video games are art. No exceptions.
Whether or not Joe Average accepts it or not is not my problem.
Gamers really need to get over this idiotic idea that we have to fight for social acceptance.
If people do not like games or view them as a legitimate art form then, to put it simply, fuck them. Fuck them in their stupid fucking ass.
I wont lose any sleep over it since no one elses opinion matters to me.
/thread

Well said, good sir. Well said.

And you did it without even needing to
retyopy said:
put Shakespeare to shame
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
Why even argue with him, he's just going to take the "I knew you'd say that because I'm smarter than you" route, whether you make a convincing point or not. This is designed to shock you all; just let him wallow in his self-satisfaction.
 

shadow_Fox81

New member
Jul 29, 2011
410
0
0
you know the the toilet guy you mentioned Marcel Duchamp, the work in question is Fountain and the thing he is saying is that a thing of beauty is a thing joy to all but if you want it to be art all you had to do was think of it as art. People may not agree with you and thats okay thats part of art.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
ChupathingyX said:
SammiYin said:
Personally, I don't give two shits whether it is / isn't art or not, or if it will even be accepted as art, I play games for fun, I don't want to sit there with a notepad analysing every piece like some pretentious arse head thinking aloud "Hmm, so this is what they developer wants me to feel at this point, interesting, but I only feel this, so I'm clearly playing this wrong, it's time to readjust my entire lifestyle based on the whim of this developer."

I'll play the game for fun, scares, interaction and more fun. Please don't take that away from me by making me analyse and think bullshit about entertainment.
Why can't we have both?

Why can't we have a game that is fun to play and that many people can just sit down and play through, while at the same time include many hidden messages and characters with interesting stories and backgrounds that other gamers can analyse and pick apart themselves?
Because that wouldn't be art. That would be called a good game. Like movies, Inception is not art but it's fun to watch and quite intellectual.

Art games would be something completely different and have a purpose beyond that of just "be fun, make money" which is the goal of almost every game in existence atm.
 

silversnake4133

New member
Mar 14, 2010
683
0
0
Okay Mr. Theater major we get it, you're upset. About what though, we're not really sure. Perhaps instead of indulging yourself in your somewhat creative tangent, (or whatever the heck that was that took up most of your post) you could look outside of the creative box for once. Art is a vague and subjective term, as is the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Games can technically be called an art form because it's a creative medium. People can take it as a major in college. It's already a work of art because it's creating something using a medium. In this case, an interactive world is created through the use of binary code and technological replication (or Virtual Reality if you will).

What many people (mostly politicians and old-school "artsy" hipsters like the OP) fail to realize is that games were always an art form ever since their creation because they seamlessly marry traditional art (scenery painting, character designs, textures etc.) with computers (binary code, virtual reality, network simulations etc.) If you don't believe me, go and play a game, even the old school ones. They all needed a team of programers and artists to make this reality that we take for granted everyday possible. Games also incorporate the art of writing and story-telling, acting or theater, and music as well.

Now with all of those "art" related fields incorporated into your average game, how the hell can you claim that games are not art? Is it because of the violence? Well, wake up and smell the coffee, violence has been involved in theater since ancient times. Cavemen often depicted violence in their cave drawings. Music was slow to violence, but some pieces had a rather barbaric rhythm and nature to them, and movies don't seem to be entertaining at all unless there's violence in it. Literature has always contained violence as well, heck even the Bible has violence in it. Therefore, violence is just a part of our culture, our nature, and the world around us. We couldn't get rid of violence if we tried. So if you're trying to claim that violence is what holds games back from being an art form then you really need to get off your soap box and do some research.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
retyopy said:
It's only a new medium if all the artsy fartsy types let it be, which they won't.
Just like they never let film in. Or novels. Or Jazz. Or any form of Rock.

OH WAIT.

Honestly, I don't care if games are ever regarded as art, but it's a silly, silly argument that totally ignores the passing of time and changing of perspective. It's as bad as those doomsayers who think that video games are going to lead people to immorality. Just like film. And novels. And Jazz. And Rock.

It may be "just an opinion," but it's a poorly formed, poorly thought out one.
 

Silenttalker22

New member
Dec 21, 2010
171
0
0
We all know they fit the textbook definition, and most understand they meet the poetic interpretation too. It's the "accepted" part that is in question. Being reliant on the unwashed masses.
As far as that goes, I forget where I read it, probably one of Yahtzee's columns, but it's just a question of what social group is in power. Games are a medium that's only a few decades old. Average age of people, and most certainly of those in speaking positions is much older. However as games continue to spread within society, and as the gamers become the speakers, it will graduate to that level of public recognition.
 

SammiYin

New member
Mar 15, 2010
538
0
0
ChupathingyX said:
SammiYin said:
Personally, I don't give two shits whether it is / isn't art or not, or if it will even be accepted as art, I play games for fun, I don't want to sit there with a notepad analysing every piece like some pretentious arse head thinking aloud "Hmm, so this is what they developer wants me to feel at this point, interesting, but I only feel this, so I'm clearly playing this wrong, it's time to readjust my entire lifestyle based on the whim of this developer."

I'll play the game for fun, scares, interaction and more fun. Please don't take that away from me by making me analyse and think bullshit about entertainment.
Why can't we have both?

Why can't we have a game that is fun to play and that many people can just sit down and play through, while at the same time include many hidden messages and characters with interesting stories and backgrounds that other gamers can analyse and pick apart themselves?
Sure we can have that, but I won't be sorry if we don't, and I'm not going to get up in arms if it transpires that we never get it, it's just not that big of a deal to me, and from where I'm sitting people are waving the flag of "Artistic acceptance" just so they can justify what they do, and would you really want to stop in the middle of a Gears of war session just because you noticed something that may have been some scathing commentary on "The human condition", which is what I see us being forced to do just to get this "acceptance" from our parents or the news, or whoever is badmouthing games this time.

People need to realise that getting on our high horses and saying to anti-gamers that "You are just inferior humans for not recognising the true artistic merits of this medium", when what we should be saying is "Ok? I'm just gonna go play some games and have fun while you keep having your opinion that holds no bearing over me." Because which is most easily ridiculed? And more importantly, which one is more likely to be taken seriously?
 

scott91575

New member
Jun 8, 2009
270
0
0
The Supreme Court of the United States has declared it an art form no different from movies or books. Your point is invalid (at least in the US).
 

ChupathingyX

New member
Jun 8, 2010
3,716
0
0
SammiYin said:
Sure we can have that, but I won't be sorry if we don't, and I'm not going to get up in arms if it transpires that we never get it, it's just not that big of a deal to me, and from where I'm sitting people are waving the flag of "Artistic acceptance" just so they can justify what they do, and would you really want to stop in the middle of a Gears of war session just because you noticed something that may have been some scathing commentary on "The human condition", which is what I see us being forced to do just to get this "acceptance" from our parents or the news, or whoever is badmouthing games this time.
But you don't have to stop and think about it, you can just keep on playing the game and enjoying it while other people who are interested will stop to think for a second. This seems like a win/win to me and is one of the beauties of games.

Of course I'm not saying that all games need to do this, look at movies, we get action heavy films for the sake of enjoyment, and then we get some films that explore more philosophical aspects, or retell a famous moment of history.

The thing is, art is the creation of someone or a group of people's imagination, and art is in the eye of the beholder, what someone might consider crap another may consider beauty and vice-versa.
 

Jazzeki

New member
Jun 29, 2011
49
0
0
if games are not art then they are tools. games are not tools. games are therefor by defualt art. it doesn't matter if people are willing to acsept that. just because i claim to be king of the world doesn't make me and equaly people claiming games are not art does not make it so either.
even then why woulod gameplay not be art? your entire argument only holds up if you blindly acsept some very questionable ideas about what art is that very few people actually acknowledge.
why would cutsences ever make it more art than gameplay? so is mono lisa not art because it could be more black or more withe or more something completly fucking difrent? just because you can replace a part of the product it can't be art.... well then is guess art doesn't exists. fuck shakesphere he's just another pointless moron is the middle of the pointless pointlessness that is completly pointless. i'm sorry but you simply do not have a point anywhere. your entire argument is built on arguments you never made.
 

Halceon

New member
Jan 31, 2009
820
0
0
Accepted? No idea. Be an artform? We're already past that point. Every interacive installation that has feedback for different configurations - BAM! games.

But let's assume that you mean interactive software. Well, let's see. What does art do? Art entertains. We have that. Art expresses emotion. We have that. Art conveys narrative. We have that. Art raises issues and makes you think about them. We. Have. That. Examples? Ok, AI War.
Entertains... well, that's true for most games anyway. Emotion - shame, injustice, despair, also pride. Narrative - a nearly extinct humanity striving to regain some semblence of presence in the universe, while facing down an omnipresent pair of hostile AI as well as several minor factions that may help and may harm. Issues - humanity was pushed to the brink of extinction by its own tools after years of infighting, and here you go, arming, blowing up planets, sending rebels to their death and generally doing it all again as if you'd learned nothing.

What does it use to convey this? Several lines of intro text to sketch in what's happened before and 8-100 hours of gameplay.
 

Simeon Ivanov

New member
Jun 2, 2011
824
0
0
Frankly dear, I don't give a damn. I play game for fun, not to get some spiritual epiphany ... or stuff. I'm an artist and I love to draw characters from games. That's enough art from me.
Usually when someone tries to put more "art" into a game, it costs gameplay and fun.

Sure there are some more artistic games, but how many of them are well known? Exactly! They may be genius, but I doubt a lot of them will survive the test of time.

Off-Topic: Here's my artistic take on Darth Revan
 

El_Chubba_Chubba

New member
Mar 13, 2009
118
0
0
The problem for me is the word "art" really, not the word "game".

To many you say art and it seems somewhat pretentious, something to be taken seriously, therefore ideas of fun and games cannot be associated with it. However I see games being "art" in the same way that film is an artform.

A game does not have to be "art", it can choose to be specifically arty, like some particular indie developed games, in the same way that you have VERY arty films. But video games can be generally accepted as an artform because the developers are creating an experience in which it is "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"
 

JackyG

New member
Jun 26, 2011
143
0
0
I've gotten so bored of this argument because it so clearly is an art form that I don't care what naysayers think. I could care less.