Give me your thoughts on this statement.

[Extragorey]

Cheese fries.

Uh, no. That was the captcha.

Here's the statement:
"Even if the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of known great artists ? it doesn?t mean that games are not art at all."

Tell me what you think of this statement. Reinforce it, criticise it, whatever - just give me something to work with. It's one of my points in a "Games As Art" essay and I'm really drawing a blank.

EDIT: Yes, I have more or less already defined art in my essay (as much as one can define art).
I'm posting this more to see what people think of this line of reasoning - it's inspired by this extract from a similar essay:

As somewhat of a side point, there are some arguments that attack the status of video games as art by pointing out that video games cannot match the greatest paintings, novels, films and so on. However, this argument rather misses the point. Even it is conceded that video games have not matched the greatest works of art, this does not show that they are not art. It would merely show that they are not on par with the greatest works. This would be like arguing that the Twilight books are not art because they are not as good as Shakespeare?s works or arguing that I am not a runner because I cannot place in the top ten at the Boston Marathon. Bad art is still art and non-world class runners are still runners.

(from http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1741)

My responses thus far (and further elaboration on what I meant by the above statement) can be found on:
Page 1: Posts 3, 5, 6, 20, 24, 26, 31, 32, and 33
Page 2: Post 36.

 

[Zhukov]

That essay of yours had better include a working definition of "art", preferably early on, at least in the first paragraph if not the introduction.

I say that because definitions help pad out your word count because the statement depends on how you define the notion of art. If you are of the opinion that something can be considered artwork regardless of merit then the statement is correct. On the other hand, if you regard art as being subject to some kind of quality threshold then it becomes a bit shaky.

 

[Extragorey]

That essay of yours had better include a working definition of "art", preferably early on, at least in the first paragraph if not the introduction.

Indeed it does; my first point in the essay.
I state that no conclusive definition of art exists, so instead we must define games as art by showing they provide the same depth and meaningful expression (creating cultural dialogue and otherwise exploring the human condition) as other conventional art forms (literature, film, music, etc.). All supported by valid references, of course.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I agree with Zhukov: a definition of art is a necessity.

Preferably also include some context with examples to back up your statement. Basically, you need to provide the 'why' of all the points made in the statement. Why are great artworks great? Why can't artistic games match those artworks? Do NOT underestimate this. 'Why' is the hardest question to answer, so make sure you know your stuff. That means lots of research, perhaps even interviewing experts to further nuance your understanding of the subject matter.

EDIT: judging by your first reply, my advice is unnecessary.

 

[Extragorey]

Basically, you need to provide the 'why' of all the points made in the statement. Why are great artworks great? Why can't artistic games match those artworks? Do NOT underestimate this. 'Why' is the hardest question to answer, so make sure you know your stuff.

Well, I took that statement somewhat out of context, but it's safe to say that most of those things are covered. I don't really go into why great artworks are great, as that's fairly undisputed, but as far as comparing the quality of games to such great artworks, I at least say that great artworks effectively explore the human condition (as stated in my previous post).

Anyone else got something to state about the statement?

 

[Rastien]

Cheese fries.

Uh, no. That was the captcha.

Here's the statement:
"Even if the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of known great artists ? it doesn?t mean that games are not art at all."

Tell me what you think of this statement. Reinforce it, criticise it, whatever - just give me something to work with. It's one of my points in a "Games As Art" essay and I'm really drawing a blank.

Well... if this piece of shit is considered art, honestly such a chip on my shoulder she lives like a slob for a year then claims it as art...:

I see no reason why a game like The Journey shouldn't be considered art:

Art imho is ment to envict an emotion, so i suppose "my bed" is art as it evokes rage.

So therfore The Journey which evokes complicated feelings of distant yet close companion ship should defintley be considered art.

Apologies if you like "The Bed" but i feel its just rubbish, its like i could fling my shit at a wall then right a paragraph saying how it shows the common mans distaste for the corperate greed and machanations of the world and get paid for it..

 

[Extragorey]

Apologies if you like "The Bed" but i feel its just rubbish, its like i could fling my shit at a wall then right a paragraph saying how it shows the common mans distaste for the corperate greed and machanations of the world and get paid for it..

Art in today's world is an ever more complicated thing. It's not really defined in the traditional sense, so instead people can express all sorts of random stuff and call it art.
Kellee Santiago wrote "Art is in the eye of both the creator and the beholder. And as those two groups of people grow and change, so will the definition and perception of art."
Fits quite well, I think.

Only other thing I have to say is that art could be limited to pre-establised mediums? Actually, come to think of it, the definition of medium is an art form, so that line of thinking is recursive...

Ugh, I'm tired, I really shouldn't be doing this right now but the due date is looming intimidatingly near (this Friday)...

 

[Rastien]

Apologies if you like "The Bed" but i feel its just rubbish, its like i could fling my shit at a wall then right a paragraph saying how it shows the common mans distaste for the corperate greed and machanations of the world and get paid for it..

Art in today's world is an ever more complicated thing. It's not really defined in the traditional sense, so instead people can express all sorts of random stuff and call it art.
Kellee Santiago wrote "Art is in the eye of both the creator and the beholder. And as those two groups of people grow and change, so will the definition and perception of art."
Fits quite well, I think.

Only other thing I have to say is that art could be limited to pre-establised mediums? Actually, come to think of it, the definition of medium is an art form, so that line of thinking is recursive...

Ugh, I'm tired, I really shouldn't be doing this right now but the due date is looming intimidatingly near (this Friday)...

Yeah if you havn't already check out extra credits videos on video game as an art good stuff.

But i guess i'm of the simplistic view of if a piece of work wether its video,music,sculptures can evoke some kind of emotion it should be considered art.

Good luck writing this paper seems to be challenging indeed

 

[Rawne1980]

The problem with "art" is it means different things to different people.

Take "the bed" above.

To some it represents something while to other people it's a messy fracking bed.

 

[ManOwaRrior]

To actually comment on the statement:

Absolutely true. And that has nothing to do with the question of what is and what isn't art, it is basic logic.
If something hasn't reached a particular level yet, it doesn't mean it never will.
On another level, just because something is not on the same level as another thing doesn't mean it is not in the same category.

 

[Vern5]

Maybe you should try isolating that ART is a term for categorization but does not include an estimation of quality.

There are all sorts of things that can be considered ART. For instance, Justin Bieber is a musical artist and so his music, by extension, is also art. Now, I find Justin Bieber's music bland and simplistic so his art falls under my categorization of BAD ART. On the other hand, I think that Beck's "Hell Yes" is one of the best songs of all time and so it falls under the categorization of GOOD ART.

Art does not always have to be good or accepted by a large majority to be art. If it was created for purpose of stimulating the senses then it was or is ART so video games easily qualify for this category. And just because there are no game equivalents of the Mona Lisa that does not ban video games from being art either.

 

[allinwonder]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is a work of art. It is on par with science fictions by people like Asimov.

 

[Elate]

I disagree with that statement, I think they've already exceeded it, I've found some games much more provocative than any piece of writing or film, bringing me to tears with the likes of Bastion. While more beautiful than any painting or drawing, and some of my favorite pieces of music are from games.

Honestly, games seem like the logical evolution of art, combining what we have so far (cinematography, setting the mood, scene, music, emotive writing, epic views) all into one lovely bundle to play through. Of course, that is if you want that kind of game.

I wouldn't exactly consider Serious Sam art.

 

[iseko]

Errr... art is ever-changing with the constant being: it has to invoke an emotional response. There are games that made me rage. Sometimes they made me sick to my stomach.

Spoiler: ME3 spoiler

goddamnit legion, why did you force my hand?!

I've seen beautiful designs and landscapes. Games that made me feel good about myself. Games that are plain fucking scary.

How are games not art? Okay not ALL games are art but honestly, neither are all paintings/books/movies/... Just because you painted a bunch of random colours on a piece of paper, does not make it art! You retarded chimp!

The statement:

Even if the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of known great artists

It's laughable. Art is subjective. Some of the great artist can suck my private parts. But that is my opinion.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I neither agree nor disagree with the statement because of one simple thing: The use of the word "exceeded". What exactly does that mean, in this context? How do videogames "exceed" great works of art?

I've had much more fun playing Halo 3 then I have looking at the Mona Lisa. Does that mean Bungie has "exceeded" Leonardo Da Vinci?

See, not to sound like a jerk, but you lost your credibility when you said you've successfully "defined art". You can't. The term is completely subjective, and thus meaningless. Keeping that in mind, I agree that games are art regardless of their content.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I am neither wrong, nor right. NO ONE is wrong or right about their opinions of what qualifies as art, because again: It's totally subjective and meaningless.

As is this thread.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Errr... art is ever-changing with the constant being: it has to invoke an emotional response. There are games that made me rage. Sometimes they made me sick to my stomach.

Spoiler

goddamnit legion, why did you force my hand?!

That spoiler tag isn't exactly helpful when you don't say what the spoiler is for. People have no idea if it applies to them or not. Just saying, a lot of people who haven't played Mass Effect 3 are going to click on it. (I'm assuming it's a ME3 reference, but if it's not...That kinda proves my point)

 

[sethisjimmy]

My thoughts on this are as such.
How are you rating art exactly? How is one piece of art quantifiably, objectively better than another? Isn't that entirely subjective?

The statement should be revised to something like:

"Even the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of great artists in terms of critical acclaim"


BUT we still have the problem of: "even the most artistic games currently developed".
My question is: what makes one game more artistic than another game? Some might judge a game's artistic merit on it's art style, music, and story, whereas others may choose to judge a game's artistic merit purely on it's gameplay and innovation.

In short, I think this kind of statement should really just be thrown out, even if you are going to claim that critical acclaim makes one thing better than another, that is simply a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

The idea that one would try and quantify art and artistic qualities so as to compare pieces of art as "better" or "worse" than one another is simply preposterous, and should never be included in any kind of professional essay.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Cheese fries.

Uh, no. That was the captcha.

Here's the statement:
"Even if the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of known great artists ? it doesn?t mean that games are not art at all."

Tell me what you think of this statement. Reinforce it, criticise it, whatever - just give me something to work with. It's one of my points in a "Games As Art" essay and I'm really drawing a blank.

EDIT: Yes, I have more or less already defined art in my essay (as much as one can define art).
I'm posting this more to see what people think of this line of reasoning - it's inspired by this extract from a similar essay:

As somewhat of a side point, there are some arguments that attack the status of video games as art by pointing out that video games cannot match the greatest paintings, novels, films and so on. However, this argument rather misses the point. Even it is conceded that video games have not matched the greatest works of art, this does not show that they are not art. It would merely show that they are not on par with the greatest works. This would be like arguing that the Twilight books are not art because they are not as good as Shakespeare?s works or arguing that I am not a runner because I cannot place in the top ten at the Boston Marathon. Bad art is still art and non-world class runners are still runners.

(from http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1741)

I got into a... "discussion" about this with someone a while back. Somehow we got into a retarded debate about pastries. Don't ask.

Anyway, for me I see Art as a "Conscious effort to evoke a specific reaction, whether emotional, physical or otherwise, via tangible/perceivable mediums". Considering Art is a very nebulous thing I could find this definition too restrictive in certain cases despite a deliberate effort to catch Arts open ended meaning through it.

Games are both tangible and perceivable, and I have been evoked by them in someway or form and I refuse to believe it wasn't intended by it's creators (Fear, Joy, Relief ect). It's low brow for the most part and I don't mean that in a demeaning way... a lot of games rely on primal thrills, but a few manage to dredge up some deeper feelings.

But games are also tethered to commerce and corporation.

...and I think that is the biggest issue with Games. Games got thrown into an industrial system far too quickly and it arrived into the publics eye as a commodity (or service for some). Unlike Film, which evolved from the rich pedigree of photography and theatre and was born as an artistic medium but turned into an industry, Games got exploited at a very young stage and it has skewed it's potential.

But it was only a delay, I think this generation has seen major strides in the Art of games and with new movements that promote independent development (a breeding ground for progressive art) will see huge changes in the coming decades.

My thoughts on this are as such.
How are you rating art exactly? How is one piece of art quantifiably, objectively better than another? Isn't that entirely subjective?

The statement should be revised to something like:

"Even the most artistic games currently developed do not yet exceed the works of great artists in terms of critical acclaim"


BUT we still have the problem of: "even the most artistic games currently developed".
My question is: what makes one game more artistic than another game? Some might judge a game's artistic merit on it's art style, music, and story, whereas others may choose to judge a game's artistic merit purely on it's gameplay and innovation.

In short, I think this kind of statement should really just be thrown out, even if you are going to claim that critical acclaim makes one thing better than another, that is simply a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.

The idea that one would try and quantify art and artistic qualities so as to compare pieces of art as "better" or "worse" than one another is simply preposterous, and should never be included in any kind of professional essay.

Art are Compositions of various elements, not just a single thing. The Art in painting is judged on things like brush stroke quality, vibrancy, tone, fidelity and the overall impact of the piece. Sculptures are judged on quality of hand, the success of its representation and even the effort required to craft it.

Film is a mixed media that is also accepted as an artistic medium. Music, Framing, Sound, setting and acting (if needed) all come together and to make the piece. They are also rated independently of each other but are still used to judge the overall piece.

Games are no exception.

 

[Extragorey]

To actually comment on the statement:

Absolutely true. And that has nothing to do with the question of what is and what isn't art, it is basic logic.

Thank you. I was wondering if it was sound logic, or if it was a somewhat weak strand of logic.

That said, there's been some very interesting discussion here. I fall asleep for a few hours and the thread explodes... Guess it's one of those topics.
Needless to say, I've gotten a few ideas for other points in my essay. You've all been very helpful.