How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Lieju]

I just ask them what they mean by art, and then ask questions like "Are movies art?" or "If books are art, is Twilight art?"

Well, obviously the only argument that is actually valid and the one most perpetuated by people is the fact that games are interactive. That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

That's already the kind of argument that shows the person has put some thought into it.
I'm talking about people like my mum's husband, who throws arguments like that at me because games are new and scary and not 'proper' things like the artsy books he doesn't actually read but is sure exists.

 

[mjharper]

I just ask them what they mean by art, and then ask questions like "Are movies art?" or "If books are art, is Twilight art?"

Well, obviously the only argument that is actually valid and the one most perpetuated by people is the fact that games are interactive. That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

That's already the kind of argument that shows the person has put some thought into it.
I'm talking about people like my mum's husband, who throws arguments like that at me because games are new and scary and not 'proper' things like the artsy books he doesn't actually read but is sure exists.

Then point out that at one time, books were new and scary, and the publication of Tom Jones (the book, not the singer ) was blamed for an earthquake in London in 1750.

 

[Hateren47]

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

Where, at any point did artist all gather round, stroke their big artist beards, smoke their big artist pipes, and mumble their big artist agreement that if you can lose it's not art

I doubt all the artists ever gathered. Considering the logistics involved (incl. time travel) it seems very unlikely. I also have a feeling artists, as a collective, is more partial to mustaches than full strokeable beards.

Could you define art for me? Are we talking the fine arts or are we including looser definitions as well? I'm decent at keeping my balance on a unicycle. Does that make me an artist? I also smear shit on paper at least once a day? Am I making art? Is a cup of coffee making art with my body as the tool and shit on toilet paper as the medium?

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

You reference a nonexistent precedent for something not qualifying as art if it is also something else. The art of the tea ceremony produces a beautiful yet potable cup of tea. The art of war involves deadly competition. The art of chess is less the board as the players' mathematical and geometrical dance to victory. Martial arts are as beautiful to watch as they are dangerously functional. An expertly forged sword is the most beautiful thing I own. Rarely prior to the age of affluent boredom that the Renaissance produced did art ever begin to exist for its own sake and not as part of some greater function. If you were to ask a medieval master of any practical art, he would probably say what you created just to be pretty was a visually pleasing utter waste of time. Even music had a purpose other than to sound nice.

So everything can be an art to you and I have a narrower definition. How do you feel about a game of heads and tails then? Bingo?

And a little off topic, are martial arts really functional? Isn't martial arts more about building confidence in a warrior rather than building the warrior? It seems to me that a proficient wrestler (wrestling being a combat sport and probably the original combat sport as well) could beat an equally proficient martial artist both to a 3 count or to injury/death. Assuming that neither have a glass jaw or some similar weakness of course.

And the medieval master can go fuck him self since he is neither a god, an emperor or a king and therefor knows nothing of value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_art

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I just ask them what they mean by art, and then ask questions like "Are movies art?" or "If books are art, is Twilight art?"

Well, obviously the only argument that is actually valid and the one most perpetuated by people is the fact that games are interactive. That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

However, there are several art installations that are interactive by their very nature. One of the examples that instantly comes to mind is an installation by a Danish artist which contained several animals trapped in blenders, lined up against the wall of a room. The visitors were free to just watch the animals in the blenders or turn one on as they saw fit, with the installation being a piece on cruelty.

One might also make the extended argument that all art is interactive to some degree, because the author's intent is only one half of what happens in art, the other being the audience reception of, and reaction to, the work. Much of modern art is about provocation and demanding a reaction from the audience and games might well be considered the next frontier for art by virtue of how well it can make the artist force the audience to interact directly with the wok.

 

[Rozalia1]

Simple. Its not treated, classified (yes some places "do"), and protected like art is.

Now before it all goes off know that I do believe they are art, so I'll say that now as I know how the slagging goes.

 

[Gankytim]

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

Where, at any point did artist all gather round, stroke their big artist beards, smoke their big artist pipes, and mumble their big artist agreement that if you can lose it's not art

I doubt all the artists ever gathered. Considering the logistics involved (incl. time travel) it seems very unlikely. I also have a feeling artists, as a collective, is more partial to mustaches than full strokeable beards.

Could you define art for me? Are we talking the fine arts or are we including looser definitions as well? I'm decent at keeping my balance on a unicycle. Does that make me an artist? I also smear shit on paper at least once a day? Am I making art? Is a cup of coffee making art with my body as the tool and shit on toilet paper as the medium?

Well, I think the generally accepted (fairly loose, yet moderately rigid) definition is "A piece of work in which the a creator or creators intend(s) to use subtext in order to create some kind of commentary or inspire some type of emotion which the responder can pick up on, decipher to find greater meaning and respond to".

By that logic, yes of course Video Games can be art. And also by that logic, when you wipe your ass you're not creating art because you're not intending to run out into the streets and show the world and wait for them to examine the subtext and see your epic commentary on Stoic philosophy applied to modern day gender dimorphism.

And a little off topic, are martial arts really functional? Isn't martial arts more about building confidence in a warrior rather than building the warrior? It seems to me that a proficient wrestler (wrestling being a combat sport and probably the original combat sport as well) could beat an equally proficient martial artist both to a 3 count or to injury/death. Assuming that neither have a glass jaw or some similar weakness of course.

And the medieval master can go fuck him self since he is neither a god, an emperor or a king and therefor knows nothing of value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_art

Martial arts are a lot of things. For some it's meditation, for others it's a test of ability, for a select few it's legitimate self defence but I've never opened a newspaper and seen a local story on one of the guys who did Karate dropping the fuck out of a mugger.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, obviously the only argument that is actually valid and the one most perpetuated by people is the fact that games are interactive. That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

But we've had artistic projects that were partially or entirely reliant on external sources (such as the audience) before, so what's the difference?

Then point out that at one time, books were new and scary, and the publication of Tom Jones (the book, not the singer ) was blamed for an earthquake in London in 1750.

I think we should blame the singer for more natural disasters.

It's also worth pointing out that at one point, the novel wasn't considered art. And, I mean, the novel includes books likke Twilight, but also ones like Moby Dick. Gothic architecture was snobbishly looked down upon as an affront to "art." Jazz and rock and roll have both historically been downplayed as "not art."

When discussing what is and isn't art, I'm often reminded of George Carlin's rules on sports. Particularly, when he decides what isn't a sport based on it being "something Romanians are good at." Point being not so much to slur Romanians, but instead that the definitions of art often come down to something just as arbitrary. This isn't art because it's ugly, or because I don't like it personally, or because ponies. More importantly, we will generally come up with definitions which are exclusive to new media.

 

[Gankytim]

I always thought of art as-something that tells a story, I like the Sandman comic view that stories is the basis of humanity. If I can play Zelda or Ico and get into a good story then it's art.

That said, not all games are art.

Of course not ALL games are art, that's a given but you can apply that to so many mediums, you can seperate them all into Art and Entertainment.

For instance: Movies.

Art: The Lion King, Strangers On A Train, The Godfather.

Entertainment: Transformers, Step Brothers, The Anchorman.

 

[Gankytim]

Who cares if games are considered art or not? Why not just play them and not worry about this stuff? I feel like gamers just look for shit to worry and complain about... because? Because I really don't know. I really don't.

For me it's all about what I'm passionate about being given the recognition and protections it deserves.

Living in Australia is shit for gamers, everything gets censored because of "THE CHILDREN!". Because it's not recognised as art. It's seen as childs toys, literally by the Govenor General (The Queens representative), the one who gives the big "Yes" to all the laws. If it were granted legal protection as an art form, maybe I'd be able to see Randy getting his ass pounded in The Stick of Truth, or maybe I wouldn't have entire weapons from L4D2 locked out to me.

 

[gargantual]

The standard arguments are all easy enough to level, "How can it not be art when it's comprised of assets everyone agrees is art?", "Define art and explain how Video Games don't fit." Things like that.

I've realized that the only real argument I have against people who say games aren't art is the Metal Gear series (Sons of Liberty specifically but the others are applicable, Ground Zeroes being the easiest to understand and 4 being too convoluted to understand) and Journey. TLoU need not apply, waiting for the remastering.

So what are some games I HAVE to play in order to argue against "Games aren't art"?

The definition of art is highly contextual. Art can be found in most anything. What gamers who don't believe games are art are arguing against is the "bohemianizing" *heh-heh* of games as a whole. To me art shouldn't fit strictly in that "bohemia" definition and anything can be seen as simple good ol' fun or be taken in a greater social context. Its more so the art is friggin awesome, but the gallery visitors can be...hmmm....well you know.

reminds me of that South Park episode "Scrotie McBoogerballs". Nowhere near the funniest, but after being on here and other media forums. MAAAAAAAN. That episode feels really resonant now. like Nostradamus prophecy.

You often hear that argument that art can't be simple fun and demand great significance without a greater responsibility for what it projects to people. Which is somewhat true considering the things that controversial games and movies DON'T choose to depict. (they have some limitations) but then it gets to the level of suggesting its participants are all borderline psychoes ready to trigger when that 'art' gets in there and does its business to the human mind. or dysfunctional addicts of a dopamine rush.

TO that my natural response is. Insult my intelligence eh media? So we're all undiscerning troglodytes simply because we really like something others find controversial? Oh uppity, boring people and their judgments.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The problem is that "art", like many other subjective terms, is nothing more than majority opinion.

Let's take the Mona Lisa. To me, it's just a painting of a woman with no eyebrows. It's a nicely-detailed painting, sure, and it pioneered a method of painting where the subject was subtly blended in with the background rather than standing out... but why is it "art" instead of just a portrait? Well, it's art because everybody says it's art. Once upon a time, paintings weren't art; neither were books, or movies, or plays. They needed time to advance, to mature, and to be accepted by the majority as something that could inspire feelings (and hence become "art").

And video games have one extra "handicap" here: They're interactive. Traditional "art" critics have mainly achieved their fame by telling you to sit down, shut up and listen to them tell you how the auteur is a genius, but with most games, the experience will have subtle (or profound) differences between one player and the next, and so the traditional critic can only tell you about his experience, making him largely irrelevant to yours. Many critics can't handle this, and so exclude games from their definition of "art".

So, in short: Just give it a decade or two, when the majority of people are those who have had emotional or intellectual experiences with games, and understand how they can be art.

 

[briankoontz]

If you are arguing with someone over whether or not X is art, then it follows that you should find a definition of "art" that you both agree on. Otherwise the argument is meaningless.

No, because the argument itself is the point. As some posters here have said, there are a lot of issues involved with the "are games art?" argument, such as the repercussions to gaming and otherwise of deciding either yes or no.

One can make various points with regard to the meaningful issues surrounding the argument without having a shared definition of art.

Two people with different definitions of art can both make good points regarding art, whether or not they are in the same room together.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I say: Games can be a vessel for art - everything can.

But probably 9/10 games aren't created to deliver an artistic vision/message but for combination of business & entertainment.
I don't consider most books "art" either. There are just very good books which either are interessting, raise a good point or explore a theory/thought or whatever but i never said: This book is art.

*shrug*

Also i don't really care about lableling stuff. It's one of the most stupid things people argue over in my eyes.

 

[Otakun]

All things that what people consider "art" share the common thread that it is something that makes you feel and think. Some art sucks but then there is fine art, the things people discuss and feel about for ages. As long as people feel for games and have discussions about them then they are art. Now, will they last as art through out time and become fine art? That's up for debate.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Personally I don't think such a blanket statement as "games are art" applies. For example I would never call games like Call of Duty art. However, although I've not played it, from what I've seen of it I think Journey qualifies.
Same think applies to film even though film is generally accepted as art. As much as I enjoyed them I would never call films like the Terminator series or the Friday the 13th films art. On the other hand Schindler's List and the Shawshank Redemption would qualify.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I think between the visual, musical, theatrical, and illustrational assets all contained in videogames, making an argument that they aren't an artistic medium is kind of fucking stupid. Even if a majority of them are just meant to entertain rather to invoke deep thought, the same thing can be said of the current state of music and film and I don't see anyone trying to levy the argument that those things aren't art. I'd think most of the people that say videogames can't be art aren't going to be familiar enough with the medium to even recognize the games you'd give to them as counterpoints.

But to directly answer your question, a few games off the top of my head that either invoke emotion or symbolism through mechanics are Majora's Mask, Papers Please, Bioshock, and Spec Ops: The Line.

 

[Lilani]

Personally I don't think such a blanket statement as "games are art" applies. For example I would never call games like Call of Duty art.

Why not? Lots of aesthetics are involved, and many artistic choices were made to create those aesthetics. The music, the cityscapes and areas, the details incorporated in to really make you feel like you're in some bombed-out village near Gaza. Sure its existence is to make money, but that's a thing all games have in common, from Call of Duty to Journey. To some extent, money always matters. And CoD in particular at least gets points for aesthetics. Even Yahtzee has pointed out how much effort the games make to swell the heartfelt patriotism with the music and visuals and whatnot. It may not be an aesthetic or goal that appeals to you, but it's definitely pursuing a specific vision.

Same think applies to film even though film is generally accepted as art. As much as I enjoyed them I would never call films like the Terminator series or the Friday the 13th films art. On the other hand Schindler's List and the Shawshank Redemption would qualify.

Come on, Friday the 13th? There's so much clever timing to build the suspense. The editing, the music, the effects, the set dressing, the writing...there is so much artistry is involved in making ANY Hollywood film. The only films I'd say aren't art are films that simply do not pursue a clear vision. Even ones that spectacularly fail at their vision can at least get credit for trying--it's not that they aren't art, it's that they're poorly executed pieces of art.