How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Generalsexbad]

Video Games are an interactive-medium, which means the music, the story, art direction, has nothing to do with it being art. What should invoke the emotional response is how the player is interacting with the game directly. And if you break most games down to the interaction, you're pretty much just shooting things. How does that expose to the player something of the human heart? How is that showing something about the human condition? It isn't. I mean honestly: after you play a match of Call Of Duty, do you put on your french beret, with a wine glass in one hand, and discus what the match meant to each of you?

Sure the story in a game might be well written and incredible, but that is a completely separate medium from video games, and no one is going to be taking video games seriously as an art form until gamers get that through their heads.

An example of a game that I think understands it's medium with flourish is the indie game Passage. Passage is a game with very retro graphics, there's no fighting, you're just walking. You play as a man who is walking down a narrow passage in which the end of the passage is blurred to you, but becomes clearer and more revealed as you continue on. In the early parts of the game you can also choose whether or not to take on a female companion who will follow you; now if you do take on the girl you won't be able to fit into certain walkways, so you'll miss treasure that way, but all the treasure you do find gives you more points with the female companion. And as you progress through the game you're character (and the female companion if you choose to bring her along) ages, and moves more slowly, tell you're character eventually dies.

The game is all about the passage of time, and that if you don't settle down with a life partner you could probably do more things with your life, but sharing moments with someone you love is so much richer. It actually almost made me cry once I finished the game.

It seems most gamers are in denial because they've wasted so much of their life playing video games all day to the point they don't want to come to the realization that it was all for nothing. I mean I love Dragon Age: Orgins, but it's just garbage for my brain.

I don't blame Robert Ebert for saying Video Games arn't art, even though I disagree with him because clearly Passage is, but from what he sees on the market, I think he is defiantly right.

 

[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.

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.

For the same reason I don't consider films like the Expendables (which admittedly I haven't seen, but judging from the trailers) or any similar film art. They are mostly just empty spectacle with little substance. Now I will admit to not having actually played a Call of Duty game and having only ever seen my nephew play the multiplayer of Modern Warfare 2 so I'm mostly going by that and reputation. Now there probably are exceptions to this, like from what I hear Spec Ops: The Line is quite a moving piece of work which could possibly qualify as art.

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.

Because like I said before, empty spectacle.

 

[Exterminas]

Most video games are constituted by various media, like cut scenes, visual design elements (= pictures), music and dialogue.

Most people agree that music, visual design, literature (dialogue) are each to be considered art.

Why should the combination of these things (Video Games) not be art?

There you have it. Neat little argument that works without opening the can of worms that is the art-definition-debate (or rather: non-debate).

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

The definition for art is so bloody loose that it could mean anything.

If we were arguing that games deserve the same amount of recognition as other works of art, then the rebuttal would be(from an extremely uninformed person) that "how can something like Super Mario or Call of Duty be considered artistic? They are completely asinine, and exist solely for catharsis."

If we were discussing the extent to which games can talk about the human condition, the rebuttal would be similar, but it'd be more like "how can games in such fantastical and un-realistic settings say anything meaningful about humanity? They are so detached from its key elements, that any statement that they could provide would be menial at best."(If I were arguing with another uninformed, supposedly a person who doesn't see the value of the Lord of The Rings Saga)

If we were talking about games in terms of more literary arts, then the retort would be "well, games simply lack the nuance of cinema, or the literary elegance of literature."([a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/10484-ARTARTARTARTFART]Like this.[/a])

That's about it for things that can't be countered instantaneously, but like how countless others have said, if someone doesn't think games are art, then they won't think they are art later. No point in arguing with such people really. It'd be an empty and rather poor discussion that could easily descend into a heated argument.

 

[elvor0]

Video Games are an interactive-medium, which means the music, the story, art direction, has nothing to do with it being art. What should invoke the emotional response is how the player is interacting with the game directly. And if you break most games done the the interaction, you're pretty much just shooting things. How does that expose to the player something of the human heart? How is that showing something about the human condition? It isn't. I mean honestly: after you play a match of Call Of Duty, do you put on your french beret, with a wine glass in one hand, and discus what the match meant to each of you?

Sure the story in a game might be well written and incredible, but that is a completely separate medium from video games, and no one is going to be taking video games seriously as an art form until gamers get that through their heads.

An example of a game that I think understands it's medium with flourish is the indie game Passage. Passage is a game with very retro graphics, there's no fighting, you're just walking. You play as a man who is walking down a narrow passage in which the end of the passage is blurred to you, but becomes clearer and more revealed as you continue on. In the early parts of the game you can also choose whether or not to take on a female companion who will follow you; now if you do take on the girl you won't be able to fit into certain walkways, so you'll miss treasure that way, but all the treasure you do find gives you more points with the female companion. And as you progress through the game you're character (and the female companion if you choose to bring her along) ages, and moves more slowly, tell you're character eventually dies.

The game is all about the passage of time, and that if you don't settle down with a life partner you could probably do more things with your life, but sharing moments with someone you love is so much richer. It actually almost made me cry once I finished the game.

It seems most gamers are in denial because they've wasted so much of their life playing video games all day to the point they don't want to come to the realization that it was all for nothing. I mean I love Dragon Age: Orgins, but it's just garbage for my brain.

I don't blame Robert Ebert for saying Video Games arn't art, even though I disagree with him because clearly Passage is, but from what he sees on the market, I think he is defiantly right.

But that's not fair. Just because you find The Passage worthy of being called art, that doesn't mean other games can't be, regardless of being AAA or indie. I imagine the people who worked on it certainly consider it their own private art form, whether that be coding or modelling the environment or characters. Games being considered an art FORM is the argument. Which would be fair to bring it in line with books, films and paintings. Not everything in there is going to be Citizen Kane or The Mona Lisa, but then neithers everything in their respective world, Birdemic: Shock and Terror, anything by Michael Bay, Twilight or a quick run through Deviantart should tell you that. It's the difference between Spec Ops: The Line and Call of Duty, one has a message and is a meta commentary, the other is just entertainment, but they are BOTH part of the art form of Games.

Either the whole medium is considered an art form or none of it is. ALL book, films and paintings are considered pieces of art. You don't have to like all of it.

Both of these pieces are in the painting world, are considered /pieces/ of art:

Spoiler: Piet Mondrians Composition no 10

Spoiler: Da Vincis Last Supper

Now, I think the first one is naff. It's just some lines painted on with masking tape to keep them straight. I see nothing, and could come up with whatever I want to be represented by that piece. Any toff with enough linquistic capibility could. It might not mean anything, maybe Mondrian just found it aesthetically pleasing. But it is still protected as a piece of art, as painting is defined as an art form. As are films. If Damian hurst can hack up a cow and stick it in a glass box with flies, call it art, be taken seriously and win awards for it, then games can be called an art form, even if it is Call of Duty.

The second is a depiction of Christ at the Last supper, it doesn't /say/ anything because it's a depiction of an event, you get what you see. Not all art needs to have some hidden message.

Similarly, not all games need to say something, but they are all part of the art/form/ of games development, just like films are considered art. There was a time when neither paintings, books nor films were considered art, now we just need to let gaming become part of it.

We start being as pretentious as the painting world and only letting specific types of games, we're gonna start giving the gaming awards to the game equivilent of The Empty Canvas or The Urinal. Bollocks to that.
I mean fuck me, you've got this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/blank-canvas-london-gallery-unveils-invisible-art-exhibition-7767057.html

If that's what it takes to be considered art, i'll stick with what we've got.

Even if the whole "there's no fighting, just walking" is pretentious in itself. Both Citizen Kane and The Godfather are considered classic pieces of Film-making. But one of them is about gansters with fighting and shooting.

Andy Warhol once said "art, is what you can get away with" and he was right. As long as you can rattle of some halfway convincing bollocks to justify your work, it can be art. You don't even need to say it yourself, just stick some shit on a canvas in a room with enough pretentious people and they'll do it for you. BAM! Instant success.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I don't really care about the definition of an art or whether someone thinks if games are art form. But, what really bothers me, and I believe I've already said it here before, is when someone argues whether some particular game is an art. For fuck's sake art is measured not by an individual piece of work, but by a medium as a whole. Nobody fucking says "Mona Lisa is an art, but this guy's amateur drawing is not", we say "Painting is an art". Nobody fucking says "Mozart is an art, but 50cent is not", we say "Music is an art". Then why the fuck do we say shit like "Journey is an art, but Call of Duty is not". It's either all video games are art, or none are!

 

[loa]

Games aren't art, games are art- what does that change for you exactly?
Unless we're talking about laws and funding, arguing whether or not something is "art" is time you could've spent better.

 

[Clowndoe]

arguing whether or not something is "art" is time you could've spent better

Aristotle would beg to differ, for debate of all forms allows man to take full advantage of his unique qualities and to better himself. So would I. Obviously, I'm not going to tell you to read this inane wall of text if you don't want to.

Original text:

Eh, fuck it, I'll rewrite essentially the same post I've made a million times before. The vast majority of people here are going in the wrong direction. The definition of art is as subjective as the quality of the art piece itself, and as such it can be argued that this whole debate is completely pointless given that it's just a matter of opinion. But we're not happy with that, we need an objective definition and an irrefutable proof that a given medium is art while another isn't. You also can't arbitrarily draw a line and say so and so examples of a medium are art while the rest aren't. If you do that, you're just saying a painting isn't art because you don't like it or because it didn't get the same emotions out of you that someone else got. You need to prove the entirety of the medium qualifies. For that reason, what you need isn't the artsiest thing in existence, it's not Spec Ops, it's not Infinite, it's not Journey or Torment or Kana: Little Sister. You need an example that stands as a representative of the entire medium. You need the most base yet pure example of the medium. More bare than even Doom, more dumberer than Call of Duty. This is why I?m nominating Tetris.

Tetris is art.

Tetris is art because I can't think of a single definition of art that applies for every painting, every sculpture, every movie, every book, every porno and every Loire valley chateau that doesn't also apply to Tetris. Off the top of my head, here are the criteria I've got:

Art is pointless - Well, obviously we enjoy it, but in a strictly utilitarian sense... Also, I am aware that architecture is partly responsible for all of us not being burried under rubble, but there's no real reason buildings have to adhere to certain aesthetic codes and what not.

Art is subjective - Duh.

Art is unique - You can make as many copies of the Mona Lisa as you want and destroy the original, as a concept there was only every one image.

Art is irreducible* and unmodifiable ? Though this is an extension of the previous I believe, I also think it?s the most important, so it gets its own paragraph. You can't draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa. You can't change the brush strokes and say it's the same thing. You also can?t abridge or describe a work of art so someone and expect them to have the same response as if they had experienced it for themselves.

In all likelihood, I?ve missed a few criteria that I?d have added had I thought of them. Anyway, here is what art isn?t: Art does not have to provoke a goopy-feely response. You would practically empty any modern art museum if you added the criteria of being ?pretty?. Music doesn?t have to be catchy, lest Beethoven?s 5th not be art. These are the types of things people use to say some games aren?t art.

I?m tired of writing already so enjoy this ham-fisted and rushed conclusion. Tetris is an art-piece. It?s pointless ? it?s a game after all, and a life-crippling time-sink for some, and it?s subjective because not everyone wants to marry Tetris, and it?s unique. Sure the game has been reformatted and repackaged into a billion different versions, but Tetris on the Gameboy would still be recognizable as a hologram using cats instead of blocks.

The most important part though, is that it?s demonstrably irreducible. I mean, tell someone who?s never heard of the game before what it?s about (you know, arranging falling blocks that represent nothing into lines) and they?d look at you funny. But put it in their hands and they might never want to put it down. You can apply that to any game, too. A lot of people have played Doom, but you know there?s no point in saying ?Oh man, that one fireball, I just dodged to the right, and then I shot him? and expect someone to get as excited as you were. It?s the same as giving someone half a painting, or the Black Square on White background without context, or even using someone else?s joke without the same delivery.

You also can?t fuck with Tetris? design at all without making a totally different game. The game being made with tetrominos (four-blocked) isn?t some fluke. Imagine the game with three- or five-blocked pieces, and what that would do the game, for I feel that with four you have the perfect amounts of predictability and complexity to make the game fun. But it?s not like it?s a scientifically generated number either. It?s not ?the more the better?. To make a better example, a lot of people like the movement speed in Doom, which is satisfyingly fast in order to give a feeling of kinesis and lets you dodge fireballs with skill, but put it in Call of Duty and it feels out of place. Those are subjective, artful design choices, the same type that allow modern theater to go nuts with story pacing and complexity without rendering the old three-unit classical theatre obsolete.

I don?t feel like giving a proper conclusion, but you know what I?m saying I hope and are probably already scrambling for a way to tell me I?m wrong.

Allow me to stop you on one.

?Call of Duty/FIFA/yearly sequel game isn?t art, it?s a cold design-by-committee cash-grab.?

Yes it is, but it can be art too. Those games function as cash-grabs because there are at least a few modestly talented designers who know how to make games that would hook specific demographics (and I like to think that they enjoy their own games at least somewhat). Also, this is the same principle that brought us kitsch, and if dogs playing poker isn?t art, then I?ll shoot myself.

Anyway, having said that, having a nice story and music and whatnot helps too.

*Special thanks to MrBTongue for the phrasing.

 

[Bakuryukun]

How to argue Games aren't art? Why it's simple, just have an oversimple needlessly constricting and rigid definition of what art is and isn't. Seems to work pretty well for most people who choose to believe it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

While a lot of artistic input definitely goes into all video games, the vast majority of them couldn't be art even if they were trying to. Most games are very similar when it comes to execution, if you take a few steps back you'll see uniqueness usually lies in a few details rather tha the way they execute the same idea.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

You really can't argue this no matter what you do because art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think splatter painting is art, some people think it isn't. Some people think a certain song is art, others don't.

I can tell you that I think "Aliens: Colonial Marines" is a "work of art", and while you could certainly disagree with me and give reasons why, you can't 'disprove' me, as there is no universal test of what makes something art.

 

[NiPah]

Hmm... Art as defined by the Oxford dictionary:
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.

Using this definition art is subjective, and also is defined by the reason for their production.
I'd argue that games produced not for their expression of beauty or emotion but for purely monetary reasons would not fit this definition, however others may disagree. Also this is just one of many definitions of art, another one is "are is art", or "You'll know it when you see it".

 

[lacktheknack]

The only way to argue against someone about games' status as art is to ask them how they define art.

They'll give a definition that carefully excludes games.

You then say "Oh? Well, I define it this way! "

Then you stare awkwardly at each other for a couple minutes.

Kind of pointless, isn't it?

 

[kortin]

Arguing with someone who doesn't think games are art is pointless. Not only are they misguided, they'll likely be stupid on top of that.

Although, I've found a lot of people who don't think games are art are actually of the belief that playing games isn't an art, which is true. It's more of a sport than art.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Most video games are constituted by various media, like cut scenes, visual design elements (= pictures), music and dialogue.

Most people agree that music, visual design, literature (dialogue) are each to be considered art.

Why should the combination of these things (Video Games) not be art?

There you have it. Neat little argument that works without opening the can of worms that is the art-definition-debate (or rather: non-debate).

My body is mostly made out of cells. Cells are invisible without a microscope. Therefore, the combination of these cells, me, is invisible without a microscope.


Neat little fallacy, but not a good argument.

Arguing with someone who doesn't think games are art is pointless. Not only are they misguided, they'll likely be stupid on top of that.

Although, I've found a lot of people who don't think games are art are actually of the belief that playing games isn't an art, which is true. It's more of a sport than art.

Yeah, if you start with that attitude, I'm sure you'll convince a lot of people. "Not only are you wrong, you're also stupid" Is even a bigger argument stopper than the Godwin. It's a wonder people aren't swayed by your impressive mastery of the ad-hominem.

A gamer here: I don't think most games are art, and the ones that are, those are the ones which are the worst at actually being games.

 

[God of Path]

I might assume that some games that would be prime targets are those which are made blatantly for profit motive (see steam shit fodder, perhaps CoD), but I think that raises a question perhaps more central to the art vs not art conversation: that is, just because something is bad art, does that exclude it from being art?

As a side note, I understand just how difficult it is to define objectively bad art, but then there's always the Muxwells and Air Controls. I don't know how one might go about defining what makes these so terrible, but these are probably pretty good candidates for discussion.

 

[Exterminas]

Most video games are constituted by various media, like cut scenes, visual design elements (= pictures), music and dialogue.

Most people agree that music, visual design, literature (dialogue) are each to be considered art.

Why should the combination of these things (Video Games) not be art?

There you have it. Neat little argument that works without opening the can of worms that is the art-definition-debate (or rather: non-debate).

My body is mostly made out of cells. Cells are invisible without a microscope. Therefore, the combination of these cells, me, is invisible without a microscope.


Neat little fallacy, but not a good argument.

I was talking about the property of being art, not the property of being invisible without a microscope. The fact that one property is not transitive does not serve to falsify that entirely different property is transitive.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

"Art" is a dumb word that at best means "anything that's the result of human creativity" (and thus, nearly everything) and at worst means "stuff I like/stuff I don't like".

Arguing whether anything is art is an exercise in futility as you first have to define "art" which varies so heavily from person to person.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Most video games are constituted by various media, like cut scenes, visual design elements (= pictures), music and dialogue.

Most people agree that music, visual design, literature (dialogue) are each to be considered art.

Why should the combination of these things (Video Games) not be art?

There you have it. Neat little argument that works without opening the can of worms that is the art-definition-debate (or rather: non-debate).

My body is mostly made out of cells. Cells are invisible without a microscope. Therefore, the combination of these cells, me, is invisible without a microscope.


Neat little fallacy, but not a good argument.

I was talking about the property of being art, not the property of being invisible without a microscope. The fact that one property is not transitive does not serve to falsify that entirely different property is transitive.

I've yet to see any argument that things made out of art are themselves always art.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

I'd say play Journey and tell me that shit ain't art.

It's beautiful.