How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Riotguards]

anything can be classed as art, we just don't look at day to day objects as art because we've pretty much going numb to these objects but if you were to go to India for example they have many traditions which would look pretty much identical to what you would call art (since most travel firms want to show this as the main feature as well)

but how can you even define what is art when you don't even define art itself, the google definition (yeah google) is

"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." - "the art of the Renaissance"

if we were to accept this definition as how we see art then it would be fair to say any story, lore, creativity in general is art and many games such as call of duty (while carbon copy they do show many events of the horror of war), metal gear solid 4 (the struggle of a lone solider who knows how frail he is) and many other games all have some artistic nature to them

of course all gamers become numb to the sensation of art but nobody really puts believes that something is related to art because our notion of art is that of painting / sculptures in museums

 

[havoc33]

How can gamers claim that games are art when many of us at the same time give negative feedback to the point of expecting the developer to mold the game as we see fit? When the developers are being sabotaged during the creative process (by either publisher or gamers) and have to stray from their original vision it cannot really be called art IMO.

 

[MrBaskerville]

It would be more interesting to discuss whether they are good art or not, for the most part i would say that they aren't but i would still call it art at some level.

 

[Dragonbums]

How can gamers claim that games are art when many of us at the same time give negative feedback to the point of expecting the developer to mold the game as we see fit? When the developers are being sabotaged during the creative process (by either publisher or gamers) and have to stray from their original vision it cannot really be called art IMO.

That has happened to all artists in the past. Art does not exist in a vacuum. They are formed by the culture and society around it. Many Renaissance painters had to alter or otherwise omit certain things from their piece because it was deemed unacceptable. There was a period where you couldn't draw nudes. There was a period where any pictures that weren't of Jesus was blasphemy etc. Etc. The notion that artists always had the freedom to do whatever they want free of consequence from the outside perception is foolish. Some periods may of had more leg room than others but never did we ever have the reign to do whatever we want without critique or consequence. It's actually much better today anyway. No, EA altering their game after an Internet outcry is not a use of force. Nobody is physically putting a gun to their head to do it. They decided to do it on their own accord. Artists of the past would envy that. Normally doing something the public didn't like landed you in the gallows. Not a mass of angry comments.

 

[Gorrath]

How can gamers claim that games are art when many of us at the same time give negative feedback to the point of expecting the developer to mold the game as we see fit? When the developers are being sabotaged during the creative process (by either publisher or gamers) and have to stray from their original vision it cannot really be called art IMO.

That has happened to all artists in the past. Art does not exist in a vacuum. They are formed by the culture and society around it. Many Renaissance painters had to alter or otherwise omit certain things from their piece because it was deemed unacceptable. There was a period where you couldn't draw nudes. There was a period where any pictures that weren't of Jesus was blasphemy etc. Etc. The notion that artists always had the freedom to do whatever they want free of consequence from the outside perception is foolish. Some periods may of had more leg room than others but never did we ever have the reign to do whatever we want without critique or consequence. It's actually much better today anyway. No, EA altering their game after an Internet outcry is a use of force. Nobody is physically putting a gun to their head to do it. They decided to do it on their own accord. Artists of the past would envy that. Normally doing something the public didn't like landed you in the gallows. Not a mass of angry comments.

Great rebuttal there Dragon, I agree 100%. This idea that art is only art when unconstrained by society or culture, or an angry mob is silly.

OT: I've argued this "art or not art" thing at length and I've never seen anyone come up with a compelling argument as to why video games should not be considered art. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, so if you want to claim games are not art, you must back that claim up. Now I have a burden of proof too, because I will claim video games are art, and my reasoning is that they fit the generally accepted definitions of art that I've seen proposed. I am in agreement with those that say, "If you want to claim games are not art, define art and explain why video games don't fit that definition."

Some who fall into the "games are not art" camp often fall back on the "interactive nature" of video games and how the experience is not complete without the player (Ebert famously fell back on this argument, since it seems to be the only one that can be made.) And yet even that argument falls apart under scrutiny. Interactivity cannot possibly be used as a reason to disqualify a medium from being considered art because interactivity is a necessary part of all art. Games, like all art, seek to goad the audience into reacting, which cannot be achieved if the audience does not interact with the piece. This interaction may be as simple as walking around a gallery and looking at the art, but it is interaction nonetheless.

One can argue that game is not complete without a player, it's true, but neither is a painting without someone to look at it. Every medium of art focuses on how it impacts its audience, so why on Earth would this "interactive nature", which itself is so necessary a part of every other art form, suddenly become a disqualifier for video games? It does not stand to reason, as it becomes merely a special pleading argument.

 

[Lightknight]

The only difference between traditional art and gaming is interactivity.

I'd say that each of the individual assets should and must be considered art. The music, the landscape, and every character/enemy model are all creations of artistic minds.

It's playing the game that is not art. But the game itself and the things you interact with absolutely must be considered art.

Think of the work put into designing wardrobes and the architecture involved in buildings. That all these components are art is unmistakable. Once put in place it is all a massive work of art. You then get to play in the art but it isn't the "game" component that is the art anymore than reading is literature. Reading is merely how you experience the art.

For anyone to claim that a video game is not art, they'd have to explain how the game is not comprised of art.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

In truth though, 9/10 illustrations (way more actually)are created for a combination of business/entertainment. The same can be said of most, maybe even all mediums of art. A piece of art can exist for business/entertainment and still be art. I think it is the emotional content of the creators and that of the audience that results in a work being transformed into art. In this sense art is an emergent property born out of people's experience with the piece.

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.

The blanket statement "Movies are art" applies to the medium, not necessarily to a specific piece within that medium. If, as I mentioned above, art is an emergent property, that would explain why many would consider Shawshank "art" and Terminator "not art". Highly subjective of course, but art is a very personal experience, so them's the breaks.

 

[Gorrath]

double-posting in capcha Hell

 

[Gorrath]

The only difference between traditional art and gaming is interactivity.

I'd say that each of the individual assets should and must be considered art. The music, the landscape, and every character/enemy model are all creations of artistic minds.

It's playing the game that is not art. But the game itself and the things you interact with absolutely must be considered art.

Think of the work put into designing wardrobes and the architecture involved in buildings. That all these components are art is unmistakable. Once put in place it is all a massive work of art. You then get to play in the art but it isn't the "game" component that is the art anymore than reading is literature. Reading is merely how you experience the art.

For anyone to claim that a video game is not art, they'd have to explain how the game is not comprised of art.

But the audience's experience of art is part of the process is it not? Even traditional forms of art (writing, painting, ect.) have whole academic courses dedicated to studying how art exists as a property of the audience's experience of it. One could argue that reading is as much a part of literature as writing, since you cannot have art without an audience. This is one of the reasons why galleries take special pains to control lightning, background, and other ambiance, as the audience's perception of the work is every bit as important as the paint that made it off the brush. Video games have a unique kind of interactivity of its various pieces, but all art is by its nature interactive.

 

[Gali]

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.

Because realizing games can be art takes them to a whole new level that benefits the medium in the long run. Seeing that they can be much more than a bunch of code to entertain us/a commercial product means meaningful discussion on what we can do with them, how they affect us, what makes them good, what is missing and more. The benefit can be seen in other media like movies or books. Taking them as art means exploring boundaries, being more creative and experimentation that in the end creates stylistic devices and things like that to create better stories, visuals, even entertainment and so on in future work.

You are welcome to enjoy them for just what they are. But there are people out there that want to push boundaries to make this type of media better or more diverse so more people can enjoy games. And this should be allowed and recognized. They can do it by discussion about certain problems(I think this what you call "complaining" or "worrying"), making games themselves, mastering the playing of games, analyzing them or researching them. Just what other people do with other media who don't just consume it. Books would be much more boring without these people, or films not as beautiful or meaningfull.. and so on.

I think one of the easiest definitions of art is, that it is a form of human expression. That way the question is not if it IS art, the question is wether it is good or bad art.

Edit: I would also argue that the player is also some kind of artist, or at least someone who is very good at a certain game. For example: Someone who plays an instrument very good is called an artist. The counterpart in games would be: the professional gamer. When I see the play of Starcraft I progamers from Korea, I just can't prevent myself from thinking that their way of play is beautiful in some way - besides being very entertaining.
But that view might be too controversial, even for people who call games art.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

Because realizing games can be art takes them to a whole new level that benefits the medium in the long run. Seeing that they can be much more than a bunch of code to entertain us/a commercial product means meaningful discussion on what we can do with them, how they affect us, what makes them good, what is missing and more. The benefit can be seen in other media like movies or books. Taking them as art means exploring boundaries, being more creative and experimentation that in the end creates stylistic devices and things like that to create better stories, visuals, even entertainment and so on in future work.

You are welcome to enjoy them for just what they are. But there are people out there that want to push boundaries to make this type of media better or more diverse so more people can enjoy games. And this should be allowed and recognized. They can do it by discussion about certain problems(I think this what you call "complaining" or "worrying"), making games themselves, mastering the playing of games, analyzing them or researching them. Just what other people do with other media who don't just consume it. Books would be much more boring without these people, or films not as beautiful or meaningfull.. and so on.

I think one of the easiest definitions of art is, that it is a form of human expression. That way the question is not if it IS art, the question is wether it is good or bad art.

And to add to your excellent points about why it matters, we should not forget that in some places a medium's legal status as "art" or "not art" can affect whether or not it is subject to censorship. Your explanation should be sufficient, but even if someone rejects it, no one can argue that the practical matter of censorship can be ignored.

 

[Schadrach]

(Yes, I know, this is literally the plot of MGS2, Memes going on the internet. This was a 2002 game, when was the first time you heard the phrase "Internet meme" I guarantee you it was around 2007 or soon after.)

I was with you up until here.

You just reminded me how fast internet time moves to real time, and now I feel old. Like people who claim that it was rare to have internet access at all in the 90s. I got internet access in 1995 (and I'm in the middle of Appalachia, I've heard people call the largest city in the state "rural", and I had no trouble finding a local ISP in 1995), and my friends in high school all had internet access as well (we were all rocking the dial up until our cable provider started offering internet service). Quake (one of the first games to make internet multiplayer a central feature, as opposed to, for example, playing on a local BBS) came out in 1996.

The year MGS2 came out (2001 except in EU where it was 2002) was also the year All Your Base Are Belong To Us and Peanut Butter Jelly Time originated as memes (for EU substitute Yatta! and REAL ULTIMATE POWER since EU got it the following year). I can see why you think internet memes weren't a thing back then, it's not like anyone has heard of those nearly a decade and a half later...

Less certain about the first time I heard the *phrase* internet meme used as such, but I'm pretty sure it predates 2007 by a fair bit. I used to spend a fair bit of time on the chans though, back before they started making "changes" just because webhosts threatened to shut them down (back before not4chan, 7chan, 12chan or the others).

TL;DR: Get off my lawn, whippersnappers.

 

[teamcharlie]

Are games bacon? No, generally not (I'm sure there are a few examples out there that are, but most of them just aren't). Bacon is good. But those facts don't make games bad just because they aren't bacon.

Art is a more nebulous entity than bacon. Lots of people have different, and arguably equally valid, definitions for it. Generally speaking, in whatever way we define art it's usually a 'good thing.' Some of those definitions may fit games, some may not. But it's not an insult to gaming if it doesn't fit every single possible definition of art that anybody could come up with. Games are still good. It's okay. You can play them and not have to feel like a boor, even if they don't fit one of the many definitions of art out there.

 

[DrOswald]

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 isn't even valid. This argument also shows a complete misunderstanding of what a game is. The idea that the interactivity compromises the artistic vision of the piece is laughable. A gamer cannot change the core of a game (beyond modding, but mods themselves could be considered art.) A gamer can only experience the art within the bounds set by the artist. The gamer can only experience the art that was created.

 

[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.

The blanket statement "Movies are art" applies to the medium, not necessarily to a specific piece within that medium. If, as I mentioned above, art is an emergent property, that would explain why many would consider Shawshank "art" and Terminator "not art". Highly subjective of course, but art is a very personal experience, so them's the breaks.

I'm aware of that and I'm saying that it's a false statement. Unless you're saying that a work can't be dismissed as not being art just because it's within that medium. However just being in a given medium doesn't qualify it as art.

Edit: A more accurate statement would be to say that games or movies CAN be art.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

The blanket statement "Movies are art" applies to the medium, not necessarily to a specific piece within that medium. If, as I mentioned above, art is an emergent property, that would explain why many would consider Shawshank "art" and Terminator "not art". Highly subjective of course, but art is a very personal experience, so them's the breaks.

I'm aware of that and I'm saying that it's a false statement. Unless you're saying that a work can't be dismissed as not being art just because it's within that medium. However just being in a given medium doesn't qualify it as art.

Edit: A more accurate statement would be to say that games or movies CAN be art.

Not at all, I'm saying that there is "art as a medium" and that that should be differentiated from "art as a piece of work". The blanket statement "games are art" would apply to the medium, not any game specifically. "Art as a piece of work" would be much more subjective and open to scrutiny. So, while we can say "games are art" and be justified in making that blanket assertion, claiming that any specific game has artistic merit would require its own defense. This is backed by legal precedent as well (for whatever that's worth) in that a movie can be legally considered a movie and also not legally considered art. I hope that clarified what I meant. I'm not so much arguing against your original point, as much as just saying that saying "games are art" is fine, just so long as it's understood that we're talking about the medium as a whole and not any possible game that could be made.

 

[Lightknight]

The only difference between traditional art and gaming is interactivity.

I'd say that each of the individual assets should and must be considered art. The music, the landscape, and every character/enemy model are all creations of artistic minds.

It's playing the game that is not art. But the game itself and the things you interact with absolutely must be considered art.

Think of the work put into designing wardrobes and the architecture involved in buildings. That all these components are art is unmistakable. Once put in place it is all a massive work of art. You then get to play in the art but it isn't the "game" component that is the art anymore than reading is literature. Reading is merely how you experience the art.

For anyone to claim that a video game is not art, they'd have to explain how the game is not comprised of art.

But the audience's experience of art is part of the process is it not? Even traditional forms of art (writing, painting, ect.) have whole academic courses dedicated to studying how art exists as a property of the audience's experience of it. One could argue that reading is as much a part of literature as writing, since you cannot have art without an audience. This is one of the reasons why galleries take special pains to control lightning, background, and other ambiance, as the audience's perception of the work is every bit as important as the paint that made it off the brush. Video games have a unique kind of interactivity of its various pieces, but all art is by its nature interactive.

The "process" is not art. No. A piece of art never observed by anyone but its creator is still art. It's merely unappreciated art but art all the same. The mona lisa is still the Mona Lisa even if it had been buried in a ditch five minutes after the paint dried. Our looking at it did not change its nature or properties.

In any event, to claim that we are creating art or are contributing to the art by viewing it in some way is not only the most arrogant of claims but it robs credit from the people who actually created it. Having seen the Mona Lisa, I am no more responsible for its existence than the wall hanging it up.

Now, the opinion of people can put something into a category which is or is not art. But that doesn't create or destroy. It only classifies.

 

[Gorrath]

The "process" is not art. No. A piece of art never observed by anyone but its creator is still art. It's merely unappreciated art but art all the same. The mona lisa is still the Mona Lisa even if it had been buried in a ditch five minutes after the paint dried. Our looking at it did not change its nature or properties.

The claim that the process is not art would depend on the definition we were using for art. If art is an emergent property brought about by an audience viewing and reacting to a piece of work created by an artist, then the audience's participation is absolutely required. This idea may seem a bit absurd, but it is my understanding that this notion carries some academic credibility. I tend to favor this definition of art being as much about the beholder as the creation itself. If an artist takes a crap in a can and calls it art, but the audience tells him that his crap in a can isn't art, this definition allows for that audience reaction to be valid. If art is only what's created, then crap in a can is art all day long.

In any event, to claim that we are creating art or are contributing to the art by viewing it in some way is not only the most arrogant of claims but it robs credit from the people who actually created it.

Again, what you say here may or not be true depending on our definition of art. Going by a definition that is solely about the work that's created, you would be correct, but then anything ever created can be labeled art by its creator, no matter how facile. I'm not going to argue that either definition of art, (by work or by process and audience inclusion)is the correct one, but I do see more merit in the idea of art as an emergent property including the audience than I do as an arbitrary label.

Edit: I feel it is necessary to clarify that I am not speaking from any personal authority on this subject. I am not a professional artist nor an art academic. My understanding of the subject is merely cultivated by being married to a professional artist and our various conversations about bits and pieces of art academia.

 

[Lightknight]

The claim that the process is not art would depend on the definition we were using for art. If art is an emergent property brought about by an audience viewing and reacting to a piece of work created by an artist, then the audience's participation is absolutely required. This idea may seem a bit absurd, but it is my understanding that this notion carries some academic credibility. I tend to favor this definition of art being as much about the beholder as the creation itself. If an artist takes a crap in a can and calls it art, but the audience tells him that his crap in a can isn't art, this definition allows for that audience reaction to be valid. If art is only what's created, then crap in a can is art all day long.

Who defines it that way? Who adds an audience to the process? How can anyone's eye sight take or add even one more brush stroke to any painting or words to/from any book? Audacious claims I say.

You may notice that I edited my original post. The audience merely classifies/categorizes. It does not magically transform the piece.

Again, what you say here may or not be true depending on our definition of art. Going by a definition that is solely about the work that's created, you would be correct, but then anything ever created can be labeled art by its creator, no matter how facile. I'm not going to argue that either definition of art, (by work or by process and audience inclusion)is the correct one, but I do see more merit in the idea of art as an emergent property including the audience than I do as an arbitrary label.

Here's a question then. If you thought that the [insert revered piece of art here] was utter trash, would that take anything away from it being art? Aside from an oftentimes vague public consensus, then existence of a piece of art as art is intrinsic. There are master pieces that have been destroyed which we may never observe but which would fill our hearts and minds with wonder. The lack of observation doesn't make that less true. It only makes the work unappreciated.

The evocation of emotional response to art is caused by the art. That we see and feel doesn't change that.

 

[Gorrath]

Who defines it that way? Who adds an audience to the process? How can anyone's eye sight take or add even one more brush stroke to any painting or words to/from any book? Audacious claims I say.

You may notice that I edited my original post. The audience merely classifies/categorizes. It does not magically transform the piece.

Sorry, I didn't see your edit in time otherwise I would have edited my response as well. As to who defines it this way? Art theory professors and academics I assume, though I imagine some of them are likely to bicker over this topic as well. I would not call the transformation magical so much as simply part and parcel to the process that is art. In this sense, art isn't simply putting brush to canvas or bow to instrument, but also the way that the audience responds to it. It's not so much your eye-sight adding to the work presented, but that your emotional reaction to the piece completes the process that is art. Even if it is mere classification by the audience as "art" or "not art" that moment of classification can only come when the piece is viewed by an audience, and so the process of art is not complete until that moment. A piece never viewed by an audience however? Well, I guess I'll butcher physics as well and call it Schrodinger's painting? In essence, we could not properly call something art until it has been viewed by an audience. Audacious is quite right I think, though perhaps not without merit!

Again, what you say here may or not be true depending on our definition of art. Going by a definition that is solely about the work that's created, you would be correct, but then anything ever created can be labeled art by its creator, no matter how facile. I'm not going to argue that either definition of art, (by work or by process and audience inclusion)is the correct one, but I do see more merit in the idea of art as an emergent property including the audience than I do as an arbitrary label.

Here's a question then. If you thought that the [insert revered piece of art here] was utter trash, would that take anything away from it being art? Aside from an oftentimes vague public consensus, then existence of a piece of art as art is intrinsic. There are master pieces that have been destroyed which we may never observe but which would fill our hearts and minds with wonder. The lack of observation doesn't make that less true. It only makes the work unappreciated.

To me, it certainly would detract from it being "art". That's why the audience part of this is so essential. If art is an intrinsic property of certain kinds of human work, than anything which is done that meets the definition of that work is automatically art. Thus, crap in a can is sculpture and no one can say otherwise with any validity; crap in a can is art because it meets our definition of art.

As for vague public consensus or even academic consensus, either one seems a poor standard, I agree. But, if the process of "art" includes the audience, then each member makes of the piece as they wish and so crap in a can is art to one person, garbage to another. I would say this is a point in favor of the "art as a process" definition again, because then at least we can argue about whether crap in a can should rightfully be called art. If art is just the work, crap in a can is art no matter how many people say it isn't.

And again, for the masterpiece never seen, we would be moved by it (some of us, maybe even all of us) but without it shown to us so that we can be moved, how can we call it art? We've no way to see it and thus no way, as you say, to classify it. You can't call it a masterpiece without having viewed it to make that assertion, no?

Edit: Fun talk by the way, thanks for engaging me on this stuff!