Games will never be accepted as an art form

[CarlMin]

Art in its purest definition is merely an expression of emotion. It's one of the many ways we humans communicate our most complex feelings, by the use of words, colors or animation.

So technically, a video game could already be an art form.

Also this:

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

They said the same about films and comics.At the end of the day all media is inherently art. Which dose not make it good art it just makes it art.

 

[Athinira]

Yeah. And they also said computers would never beat humans at chess.

People who try to arrogantly predict the future pretty much always end up being wrong. This is no exception. In fact, several countries are already on the way to start acknowledging games as cultural media that is eligable for governmental funding (in the same way as TV and radio already is).

This thread does not impress me.

 

[Alexlion]

Wow some one has a bee in their bonnet lol, i cant help but think a thread started with vitriol such as this doesn't really come from a rational stand point but a emotional one. What seems to escape you is one the artsy types you refer to do not own the definition of art, art is essentially nebulous you cannot back up an artistic claim with facts, only opinions. Who are you to think you have right to claim what is art and what isn't, you say this dada movement isn't art but it seems a large portion of people do. My advice is to learn to differentiate opinion and fact.

p.s. Is it really getting your knickers in a twist about all this i mean who cares enjoy the games, game developers trying to be more artistic will probably benefit the industry bringing in new ideas and better aesthetics. If your worried, call of duty isnt going to change you will still have plenty of games to blow things up in.

 

[Elysis]

It's funny because most people in this thread think "Art" automatically means "tedious" and "boring"
Ignorance. I won't even bother -_-

 

[oktalist]

Even if your story is the best in the world, even if your dialogue would put Shakespeare to shame, even if your game world is beautiful and mystical, your game isn't going to be called art outside of the gaming community. You want to know why? It's the "GAME" part of a GAME. You know, the part where you spend hours fighting off hordes of zombie and play phiysics puzzles and take part in random violence. Why is this a dooming quality? Because it could effectively be replaced by cutscenes, and it has no point.

They said the same kinds of things about film. It's just a trivial curiosity. It doesn't add anything which you can't already do in theatre. It can never be as expressive as a painting. And so on. And at the time, they were right.

But just because you can't imagine it now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future when the world has moved on.

When Charles Babbage tried to get funding to build his analytical engine, people asked "what's the point?" When Alexander Bell invented the telephone, others asked "what's the point?" When Tim Berners-Lee invented the worldwide web, it was asked again, "what's the point?" And the inventors didn't know what the point was. They just knew it would be important.

It might not have an application now, but the doors it opens will create new, unforseen opportunities in the future.

But first off, the dada movement was a load of shit between to shits on a shit sandwich, (so I basically included them just to get a dig in,) and all those other pointless bits of art are pointless because that's what they are supposed to be. Their meaning is to be meaningless, so to speak.

You claim art must have a definite point, or be pointless for the sake of being pointless. There is no room in your art world for open-ended works with indefinite points. This is wrong.

oh, sure, some games will be art, but they won't be games. They'll be linear corridors where your character is savaged by monsters that represent the artists inner demons a few times and then falls down a pit, and your only purpose for playing is to "make you feel his pain." But they won't be called games, oh no. They'll be called "immersive representations" or some such crap.

You claim art is characterised by containing representations and significations of deep, mystical stuff. This is a fallacy perpetuated by art colleges trying to be taken seriously by the academic world, trying to validate their work which otherwise resists analysis in the traditional academic sense of exams, coursework and so on. It's like literary critics imbuing Shakespeare with all sorts of representations and significations of deep, mystical stuff when all he was doing was making entertaining plays for the masses. Art doesn't need all that rubbish, and is better off without it. So it has no place in a debate about games as art.

 

[Sammaul]

If everything can mean anything to anyone, nothing means anything at all.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

And yet the world keeps on spinning.
You know what, I don't need games to be an artform if it takes the fun out of them (not that it's needed at all, but hey). I don't need the wider population's validation to keep playing games.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I didn't read the whole thread but there is one large problem with the OP's post; Hir implies that art cannot be interactive, which is incorrect.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Art: use of imagination or skill in the production of things of beauty.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

In short webster's dictionary says yes, any argument in english is void, as long as at least any one being finds it attractive.

 

[Slinker07]

I was at an art school, and most people there saw games as art already. I think most people that has an general idea of what games are and what they can be can view them as art.

What they didn't get along with was what the whole concept of "what is art and what is not". A decades old debate that is only repeating itself with games without adding any new air into it really.

Looking at the indie games now I think we are very much in a period where more games develops mainly for an "artsticaly" purpose of it. With games like The path, Flower and Limbo.

Art nowdays for me is a pretty personal matter of viewing and how affects the person viewing it. Games may not be seen as art, by a few "elits". But games is the biggest entertaiment form out there now. To say that the general population would never see it as art is simply riddicules and goes against everything that says that most people like games nowdays.

 

[ascorbius]

For me art is something that makes you feel something differently or shows you how to feel something you never experienced. It's something that teaches us about ourselves in ways not limited to the restrictions of modern life.

If you can play a game and the game makes you think about something, then it was art. If a game gives an emotional connection which was beyond the story or the visuals. If it takes you somewhere and shows you something you didn't expect.

My problem with the Games as art thing is that Games seem to be transient. They will not survive individually to be recognised or appreciated as art later on. Games need technology to play them and as technology advances, it leaves old games behind.
Old paintings can be stored and displayed in museums for all to see.
Games need a bit more than that. Advances in paper did not make canvas obsolete or prevent it from being seen.


Here are a few games which have made me think... mostly about the human condition.

Mass Effect - We are insignificant in the universe and no matter how far we feel we have advanced, we are as barbaric as ever. With all of the improvements in technology, we still choose to be shitty to each-other, greedy and violent. We have not outgrown our base instincts to survive and grow at all costs. We know this and hide behind a thin veneer of civility But as Commander Shepherd, you can choose to do something different, to be a force for good and try to make a difference. To buy humanity more time so that we may grow up a little.

Mah-jong & Bejewelled - Life starts out pretty easy with seemingly unlimited choices, but with each choice you find that you limit yourself in some way and have to suffer the consequence. If you're lucky, you'll clear the table and win. Most of the time though, your choices just take you down a path where there is no return. We cannot see the future, We are not in control of our destiny, we just have to play the game with the options we see and hope for the best.

Mario - A jong journey faced with countless dangers. You can be as prepared as you like but in the end, every choice you make could be your last. Rescuing the princess is always in the back of your mind driving you onwards but before then there is the journey.

Oblivion - Walking in the countryside, I see places I want to explore, I can almost smell the forest. I am alive. I am free. I stumble upon a wild animal who turns to fight me. The animal slain, I see ancient ruins and consider what kind of civilisation was here before me? Even though I am powerful, beings greater than myself have been lost and their structures lie in ruins. What fate for me then?


Or maybe, Games aren't art and I just need to get some therapy..

 

[Saviordd1]

I'd disagree no matter what but since the US has already legally declared it an art form theres no point.

 

[Snoozer]

For me "Art" rather means qualitiy and depth and not "random and boring stuff" (As most people consider it, who never really have dealt with Art). I don't see what's so bad about that.

 

[Psytrese]

The same way movies have exploded over the past century, games will also. All the kids that grew up watching and loving movies, grew up and made them a generally accepted art form.

It will be generally accepted because eventually the number of people who play and love games will grow to outnumber the people who don't, in a manner similar to how it has done exponentially in the past 10years.

 

[zehydra]

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).

yeah, I was going to say..

OP, it already HAS.

 

[SageRuffin]

I think what a lot of people (myself included) fail to realize is that it's not so much the gameplay aspects of the game that are deemed to have artistic merit, but more so the various machinations that make the game itself, gameplay notwithstanding of course. Things like writing and storytelling, music, artistic direction (El Shaddai: Ascension to the Metatron comes to mind), all those are art forms. Not everyone is gonna agree with me on this, but I still find it somewhat ridiculous for a video game as a whole to be considered an art form unless we're strictly talking in a creationism sense.

I think the gaming community as a whole would a lot less like a bunch pompous, self-entitled, jackass man-children if we sit back and look at the finer points of video games - art direction/graphics, writing, music, what have you - as opposed to saying "gaems r art W00t!" and being done with it.

 

[K_Dub]

Art is objective people! No one answer is absolute! Let's all chill the hell out now!

Personally, I think games are already an art form. I mean, art is something that makes you feel certain emotions. It doesn't really matter how an art form gets those emotions across, so long as the viewer feels them.

 

[oktalist]

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.

It is for these same reasons that people consume art.

Not that I don't like the idea, but I didn't know this industry is supposed to be run by those cheese-eating, beret-wearing, wine-swilling trumpet-farters in art galleries that I'd rather kick in the face than hear them talk on and on about what art is supposed to be and how godly they are compared to us filthy commoners.

This is a huge problem the "art world" has with how it is percieved. It's come about only recently, due to the tendency for art colleges to try to fit into the traditional academic world of exams and coursework. In order to do that, they need to have something to write about, which means fabricating some bullshit false meaning or significance or mysticism about their work. They do this to get funding from whatever bodies fund these things.

Picasso never worried about that crap. Da Vinci never worried about that crap. Van Gogh never worried about that crap. And most of the people who appreciate their paintings every day never worry about that crap.

It's only a new medium if all the artsy fartsy types let it be, which they won't.

So wrong. They don't get to choose. They are not the leaders of a heirarchical command structure. Art is largely democratic; as long as enough people think something is art, the critics would have to acknowledge that.

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?

But games are art anyway, without any of that hidden messages, deep meaningful bullshit. Those things are not what makes something art. The dictionary says it's "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium" but really art is whatever you want it to be.