Give me your thoughts on this statement.

[Bertylicious]

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.

Welp that pretty much sums up everything that needs to be said on any discussion about art ever.

Y'know, unless we're saying that all video games are derivative and therefore not art. So really the argument would be about that rather than about art itself.

I'm er, I'm not really knowledgeable or qualified enough to really say any more on the matter.

 

[bluegate]

Cheese fries.
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."

Nice statement, but I sure hope that you don't plan on setting up your essay around it because, well, the statement has no substance.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'd say that it is a fair statement. By the only useful definition of art I've ever heard, in order to be art, a game has to have a profound emotional impact. That's all it takes.

And, you know what? Games don't do that. Not often at least and certainly not well. Sure, they've got a bit of fear and the related emotion of excitement. That is done pretty well. But no game has ever really evoked joy or sorrow or hope or any of the dozen other emotions reliably. Some games have had isolated moments of such things. Shadow of the Colossus had creeping dread but it had perhaps a few dozen brief moments where it crystallized into something more. Flower brought moments of joy with light and color and sound but its own efforts to be an art game got in the way of the bits that were art (the constantly cutting to the next set of flowers for example - useful mechanically but devastating to the experience).

Plenty of games have tried to be artistic and largely failed. Braid had incredible visual design which utterly failed to evoke an emotional response (save annoyance). The same could be said of Okami or a dozen other commonly cited "art games".

The base assumption that so many work from - that something made by artists is inherently art or that if something was intended to be art it exists as art is flawed. Art is defined by the viewer. A painting can exist as just oil on canvas for one (a product) and art for another. A song can just be noise or a masterwork that can bring a strong person to tears. Art is not defined by intent but rather by result. And, from my perspective, art in games is rare.

That doesn't mean that the medium is incapable of being artistic or that it is entirely devoid of artistic merit or any of that extremist nonsense. It's just that games, are simply a medium that most have used to build toys. But there are plenty of moments where games have reminded us that nothing says it just has to be a toy. Its the same arc all media follows. Movies spent decades before people really figured out the art angle. Entire genres of music spent years as little more than political statements rather than art. Comics spent decades as diversions for children.

Bottom line: it isn't meant to be an insult that games have not, to date, exceeded the work of legendary artists who worked with media used for centuries. It is simply a statement of fact that one ought not dismiss because it seems unpleasant. It isn't an indictment; it is a challenge.

 

[Extragorey]

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.

Why thank you. I think.

Anyway, I did not say I have successfully defined art; I said I have "more or less" defined art, acknowledging that art cannot be comprehensively "defined". I also touch on this in my second post (post 3 in the thread), though I'm not surprised if you didn't see that.

I am also well aware that comparing Halo 3 to the Mona Lise is like comparing apples to oranges - except fruitless.
But when talking about a medium's artistic value, you've got to use all the dirty tricks in the book to convince people like Roger Ebert [http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html] that video games are, in fact, art.
It's a very difficult debate for the very reasons you mention. And it doesn't seem to have an end... Except:

We don't need videogames to be better to be considered art. We just need people to change their minds.

Or wait long enough so they die and get replaced by the younger generation. That can work.

...Which made me laugh, but it's probably true.

 

[Paladin2905]

I don't think that games and art belong in the same category, because games can not be art.

Now, before I get flamed to death:

This issue came up once in a discussion I was having with some people, and we reasoned that there is a difference between arts and crafts. We figure that art only exists to be art, which sets it apart from crafts- which have a purpose beyond that of their aesthetic or emotional value.

I personally believe that many, many things have the qualities of great art in them; some examples would include architecture and craft cars- but they don't have the oneness of purpose that art seems to hold. Honestly, I tend to prefer these to actual 'art', but that is a side point.

I think that under that definition, games have not reached the great masters of art- but why would they ever want to? Games are interactive entertainment vessels, whether this function precedes or follows their form. They may share the qualities of great art, and may someday be regarded higher than art- but unless you remove the function from them entirely (beyond attracting oohs and aahs) they are not in the same category.

TL;DR- Games are a craftwork, existing for functions beyond aesthetics, and therefore not in the same category as artwork- which in no way diminishes their aesthetic value. It is very hard to compare apples and oranges.

 

[Extragorey]

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.

Hmmm... I agree. I'm not comparing the critical acclaim as such, but I'm comparing the artistic potential of each medium as a whole. Still, your point is valid; the statement needs more reworking. It just becomes annoyingly wordy if I start to specify "the worth as art of the medium of video games" and "the worth as art of any other accepted art form"... You get the picture.

 

[Gormech]

Everything is art.
Nothing is art.
Calling something art or denying that it is art should have no impact beyond personal enjoyment of the piece.
This has gone on long enough.

 

[CatmanStu]

As far as the statement goes; it seems to have the ring of logic (or is that common sense?) about it.

As far as the notion of art; I catagorise this word with the use, or lack of, a capital letter.

art: a term to describe the skills a person uses to create something THEY are proud of regardless of other peoples opinion.

Art: a label ascribed to something created by another that YOU want to be proud of inspite of other peoples opinions.

Thinking about it, defending Art is like defending Faith; if you truly believe then you don't need to defend, and if you defend then you don't truly believe.

PS - I am not a follower of any religion but have the utmost respect for those who do.

 

[Extragorey]

Art is defined by the viewer. A painting can exist as just oil on canvas for one (a product) and art for another. A song can just be noise or a masterwork that can bring a strong person to tears. Art is not defined by intent but rather by result.

I have to disagree. I would say that art is defined by the artist - if it is a meaningful expression that is designed to leave a profound emotional impact, then the creation of that artist is art, regardless of how it is received by viewers - regardless of whether or not the viewers experience the emotional impact that was intended.

I don't think that games and art belong in the same category, because games can not be art.

Now, before I get flamed to death:

This issue came up once in a discussion I was having with some people, and we reasoned that there is a difference between arts and crafts. We figure that art only exists to be art, which sets it apart from crafts- which have a purpose beyond that of their aesthetic or emotional value.

I personally believe that many, many things have the qualities of great art in them; some examples would include architecture and craft cars- but they don't have the oneness of purpose that art seems to hold. Honestly, I tend to prefer these to actual 'art', but that is a side point.

I think that under that definition, games have not reached the great masters of art- but why would they ever want to? Games are interactive entertainment vessels, whether this function precedes or follows their form. They may share the qualities of great art, and may someday be regarded higher than art- but unless you remove the function from them entirely (beyond attracting oohs and aahs) they are not in the same category.

So what is the purpose of crafts besides aesthetic or emotional value? I would argue that most crafts are in fact art, as they are not dissimilar to sculptures. Assuming, of course, that we are both thinking of the same meaning of crafts.

Also, I think you need to watch this Extra Credits video [http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/art-is-not-the-opposite-of-fun], since it appears you believe that art and entertainment are mutually exclusive.

 

[Extragorey]

Eh, there's a heavy implication there that perception of art is objective. So while I agree with and appreciate the sentiment, it's wrong.

Art is certainly subjective to the viewer, but there is also an objective quality to the artist's intention that can be compared across different art forms.

 

[Extragorey]

As far as the statement goes; it seems to have the ring of logic (or is that common sense?) about it.

As far as the notion of art; I catagorise this word with the use, or lack of, a capital letter.

art: a term to describe the skills a person uses to create something THEY are proud of regardless of other peoples opinion.

Art: a label ascribed to something created by another that YOU want to be proud of inspite of other peoples opinions.

Thinking about it, defending Art is like defending Faith; if you truly believe then you don't need to defend, and if you defend then you don't truly believe.

I like that quote, I think I'll write it down:
"If you truly believe then you don't need to defend; if you need to defend then you don't truly believe."

But I don't like the idea of differentiating between two different definitions of art by capitalisation; for one, capitalising "art" unfortunately isn't grammatically acceptable in a formal argument. And secondly it seems like you're just splitting hairs... I kind of see the distinction, but it seems somewhat vague. Though I certainly understand that art in the sense of "the art of war" (closest to your first definition) is a different definition to that of the commonly used noun which I'm basing my essay on.

 

[Bostur]

Assuming we use the definition that art is measured by quality.

Most games that attempt to be art is only artistic through presentation, not the core game. Presentation like visuals and music can be art in and by themselves, but then it isn't the game as such that is art, only elements of it.

So I feel the real question must be, can gameplay be art? This is tricky because we are used to art as a passive impression. An artist creates a piece of art, and the audience observes it. But if the audience actively takes part the result is not created by the artist. This I believe puts games in a category of its own that is separate from art in the traditional sense.

Lets ask another question. Is the game of Chess art? Can a particular game of Chess be art? Some Chess players would answer no to the first question, but yes to the second. In the same way it could be argued that Quake 2 is not art, but the gameplay of a specific player can be.
Lets observe a musical instrument. The instrument itself is usually not art, but it is normally accepted that using the instrument in a certain way can be artistic.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

*snip*

Well, alright. First of all: Why do we need to convince people that videogames are art? What do we stand to gain from this? And especially Roger Ebert: His job has nothing to do with videogames. He is not, and is not claiming to be, an authority on anything gaming related. So why do we care what he thinks about games? And more importantly, why should we care what ANYONE things of games? Maybe if we're talking about legal battles and free speech and whatnot, but we aren't. As it is, we're just squabbling over semantics.

Secondly, even if it DID matter whether or not Ebert considered games to be art, convincing him to change his mind would be impossible. I'm pretty sure he said that as far as he's concerned, art isn't interactive. So his personal definition of art excludes videogames. That doesn't make him wrong, it just means he disagrees with a lot of people. But they aren't wrong, either.

This is why the "debate" is so pointless: It's like "debating" over the best color. (Which, incidentally, is blue.)

 

[Extragorey]

*snip*

Well, alright. First of all: Why do we need to convince people that videogames are art? What do we stand to gain from this? And especially Roger Ebert: His job has nothing to do with videogames. He is not, and is not claiming to be, an authority on anything gaming related. So why do we care what he thinks about games? And more importantly, why should we care what ANYONE things of games? Maybe if we're talking about legal battles and free speech and whatnot, but we aren't. As it is, we're just squabbling over semantics.

Secondly, even if it DID matter whether or not Ebert considered games to be art, convincing him to change his mind would be impossible. I'm pretty sure he said that as far as he's concerned, art isn't interactive. So his personal definition of art excludes videogames. That doesn't make him wrong, it just means he disagrees with a lot of people. But they aren't wrong, either.

This is why the "debate" is so pointless: It's like "debating" over the best color. (Which, incidentally, is blue.)

Green, actually. Lime green to be precise.

Ebert has nothing to do with video games, it's true - in fact, he even claims that he's never played a video game in his life because they don't interest him. That alone tells me that his opinion is irrelevant, but I must address it anyway for the sake of a balanced argument. Ebert, you see, is a highly reputable film critic and his opinion is held in high regard by many. While it's a pity his insight doesn't extend to video games, he still represents a demographic that believe games are not art.

As to why the entire debate is relevant to the industry, here's a few points:
- The medium of video games does not have the same respect as other mediums.
- For example, "I?m a starving but dedicated game developer" is a lot less noble than "I?m a starving but dedicated musician".
- Art is revered in a way that entertainment is not.
- As an art form, the medium would garner much greater respect from critics and prospective investors.
- An example of this can already be seen in the USA, where the NEA has chosen to recognise games as a legal form of art [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA] and thus eligible for artistic funding.
- Games can be censored in ways that art can?t.
- Games that attempt cultural dialogue are dismissed.

I'm writing a university paper on this; I have it fairly well covered.

EDIT: And this makes the first thread I've made that's longer than one page! That's a milestone right there.

 

[Windcaler]

My thought is Cheese fries are awesome

Ok more seriously my real thought is, whos to say that a video game has not surpassed the greatest paintings, sculpture, film, or novel? Isnt what is the greatest up to personal opinion? For that matter what exactly defines the greatest? Artistic expression is not something that the US focuses on today unlike earlier parts in history in say Europe

Having been overseas many times Ive been able to look at all kinds of art from the Mona Lisa in the Louvre to the city of Petra. Likewise Ive read all sorts of literature from the (IMO highly overated) Shakespear plays to Journey to the west. Then there's films where Ive been a lover of them going from Casablanca all the way through Star wars. Its very hard to argue that something is not art when there's clearly some kind of creative drive to make it but for me I think some games have already surpassed some of the "greatest" artistic pieces in human history. They just arent seen that way and I think its mostly because people making that claim havnt played through them and taken the time to reflect on the games.

I would go further ask, why is some art so highly proclaimed. For example the Mona Lisa is unquestionably considered art in just about every community but having seen it I cant say its anything more then a painting of a lady. It doesnt engage you anymore then perhaps wondering why shes smiling or who she is. At least in absract paintings it triggers a bit of intellectual excersise as a person tries to figure out what it is.

Lets talk about Shakespear's work which is often proclaimed as the greatest literary work created in human history. Its no secret that I just dont get why its so awesome and I have to admit part of that reason is because its still read in old elizabethan style english. Unless you study that period of culture you basicly need a cultural dictionary to read his stuff today. However everything Shakespear wrote has IMO been rewritten and been done better in at least one other medium.

However to be fair, thats how I tend to look at such artistry. Its a personal outlook which will not match other people. People with differing opinions from mine arent wrong because an opinion, a completely subjective thing, cant be wrong

 

[Kalikin]

Funnily enough, I'm doing a Philosophy paper at university right now titled, "Media and the Arts", so hopefully I'll be able to say something to help you along.

You've already got a definition of "art" but here are some ideas that might help you to refine it:
1. Is "art" a product or a process? I think you'll find a lot of aestheticians claiming that a video game cannot be "true" art because of the process by which it is made. Classical art philosophers have a problem with mass production because there is not a single instance that can be called, "The work". It is one thing to say that there exists the Mona Lisa (original) and then millions of reproductions, and another to say that there is in fact no original copy at all (as is the case with video games and all mass-produced art forms).
2. Is something an artwork by virtue of it being an instance of a form (artform)? In other words, can we make an argument that "video game" is an artform, and so anything that belongs to the category "video game" is inherently an piece of art? Or can something belong to an artform while not being considered "art" (i.e, it must fulfill other criteria such as serving a function).
3. What is the relationship between the artist and the art work? What difference does it make if there are multiple people responsible for the work, and does a video game's interactive nature come into this?

As far as that statement goes, I'm of the opinion that an individual "work" is art by virtue of belonging to an artform. If I draw a stick man picture, that is "art" by virtue of it being a drawing, which is commonly called an artform. However, merely being "art" does not guarantee that it is good, so in this case I have simply made BAD art. This is a line of argument that speaks directly to your statement, and if I were you I would revise your definition somewhat so that it is form and not content that creates the work - and then go on to create an argument as to why this is the case.

You may, however, want to say that some people will simply not accept that it is the content that dictates whether an individual work is "art". For this you can draw upon what is sometimes called the "Eliminativist" view, by which art is only so-called because people in the position to do so call it that. That is, people in the economic or academic upper class. This view claims that there is no objective difference between subject matter than is "base" and that which is "artful", and so here your average video game is merely being subjected to classical snobbishness in being stripped of its "art" title.

This is getting rather long, so I'll just direct you to a couple of articles. For a definition and rebuttal of the "Eliminativist" position, you can read Noel Carroll's, "The Nature of Mass Art" (I believe this is in his 1998 book, "The Philosophy of Mass Art", but hopefully you can find that chapter in isolation online). Two related (short) articles that talk about academic snobbishness towards "mass" art, and the reason why it is important that something is labelled as art in the first place are:
"High and Low Thinking about High and Low Art", and;
"High and Low Art, High and Low Audiences", both by Ted Carroll.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have to disagree. I would say that art is defined by the artist - if it is a meaningful expression that is designed to leave a profound emotional impact, then the creation of that artist is art, regardless of how it is received by viewers - regardless of whether or not the viewers experience the emotional impact that was intended.

The intention of the creator has no bearing on if something is art. It is best demonstrated, I think, by analogy. An engineer can endeavor to craft a fine weapon of war but just because this was the intent has nothing to do with the result. Just look at the Chauchet as an example. It also works in reverse just as well - one can create art without intending to do so. The city planners of Petra probably hoped the place would inspire awe, but when carving out of rock with ancient tools one must be pragmatic. A novice photographer can snap a photo that will touch someone deeply without consideration of framing or context.

By assuming intent defines art, you hopelessly undermine any attempt to define art even in a rudimentary sense. You include in the ranks of art every lousy doodle, every bad poem, every terrible short story, every terrible piece of music, every film that wasn't worth the celluloid, every trite photograph, every silly t-shirt logo; such a definition would encompass most works of man. Worse still, you remove the viewer from the equation because art is a form of communication - a dialog formed between the artist the experiences and prejudices of the viewer.

Art, as far as I'm concerned, is defined broadly and yet precisely. By defining it as some work of man that elicits a profound emotional response from the viewer you include all the eclectic tastes of the world and, in the end, would have a proper accounting of all things that could be called art by any viewer. Better still, it inherently allows something to have the variable stature of being art or not art. Because, in the end, the only difference between the master painting that has touched millions and the scribble on the sidewalk that touched a single person is scope. That doesn't mean that unpopular art is bad art - simply that the art failed to communicate a message that resounded with the viewer on a regular basis. The same effect could be achieved by translating a piece between vastly different cultures. I would expect, for example, that Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" would have that profound emotional impact on a resident of France far more often than a resident of North Korea.

I suppose the better way to frame the discussion isn't on "good" or "bad" art but rather "effective" art. If one person in an audience of billions considers something art, then it would be art. Just woefully ineffective art. Of course, super effective art has pitfalls as well. Popular art must, by virtue of popularity, appeal to a broad base meaning any messages will be vague at best reducing any potential emotional impact.

Or, to condense this overly long reply, Art is defined exclusively by the viewer.

 

[Paladin2905]

I don't think that games and art belong in the same category, because games can not be art.

Now, before I get flamed to death:

This issue came up once in a discussion I was having with some people, and we reasoned that there is a difference between arts and crafts. We figure that art only exists to be art, which sets it apart from crafts- which have a purpose beyond that of their aesthetic or emotional value.

I personally believe that many, many things have the qualities of great art in them; some examples would include architecture and craft cars- but they don't have the oneness of purpose that art seems to hold. Honestly, I tend to prefer these to actual 'art', but that is a side point.

I think that under that definition, games have not reached the great masters of art- but why would they ever want to? Games are interactive entertainment vessels, whether this function precedes or follows their form. They may share the qualities of great art, and may someday be regarded higher than art- but unless you remove the function from them entirely (beyond attracting oohs and aahs) they are not in the same category.

So what is the purpose of crafts besides aesthetic or emotional value? I would argue that most crafts are in fact art, as they are not dissimilar to sculptures. Assuming, of course, that we are both thinking of the same meaning of crafts.

Also, I think you need to watch this Extra Credits video [http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/art-is-not-the-opposite-of-fun], since it appears you believe that art and entertainment are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

I think we're not on the same page when we talk about crafts. I'd contest that a 'craft' would be something made by a craftsman- like a tool or building. Both can have extreme aesthetic value (an example perhaps being a very well designed car or building) but serve more function than just being art, whereas I believe art has aesthetics as its most primary function.

My point is that I don't think you can consider video games as art so readily because the interactivity and entertainment functions exist in parallel with the aesthetics. They surely can have the same qualities as art, and even surpass art in those qualities- I just don't think you can compare the two effectively because of the additional functions they serve.