How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Dragonbums]

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.

This stems from a lack of ignorance about art, and it's place in history. Take one art history class and you will see immediately that art in the past was 10X more restrictive to the artists "creative vision" than anything today ever was. The concept of artists as creative visionaries is a new movement that's only been made possible due to mass production. Back then artists only had their talent, and their skills. Any sort of "vision" they had was regulated to sketchbooks. And if said vision was especially controversial? You kept it to yourself, and take great care to make sure that nobody finds it in your life time.

For many artists their entire livelihood was dependent on only three types of clients. The King/Queen, the church, and the upper class. That's it.

The royal family wanted either religious paintings, or pictures of themselves with religious pictures, or doing acts of valor.

The Church just want's religious paintings.

And the upperclass(the ones that have the most variety- although that isn't saying much) wants either pictures of them, them with religious figures, or paintings of outside religions that isn't Jesus.

That was it. Jesus, or thousand dollar selfies. Take your pick, because that's what your going to be doing for the rest of your life.

Those who went against or refused to do that found themselves either homeless, or on the business end of torture/execution device of the day.

So if you were to ask an artist of the past which they would prefer- angry comments on tumblr or internet forums, or a guiltiness, it's pretty damn obvious which one they favor.

 

[Conner42]

Well, as Roger Ebert once said "Anything can be art, even a can of Campbell's Soup"

As far as "high art" goes, that's sort of up for debate. Sure, I could list off a bunch of games that the person who's arguing against "games being art" hasn't played but I think you have to get to the basics of defining art or what makes good art. After that, hopefully things will pan out.

 

[senordesol]

The best axiom I've ever heard for this debate is this:

"Science is Knowledge
Art is Understanding"

A layman can 'know' that a building needs a certain amount of support beams and foundational strength in order to stand, but an architect 'understands' these aspects to such a degree that he can create buildings that seem impossible.

Just so, a layman can 'know' that a game much challenge him or provoke him to some action in order to satisfy 'win' conditions, but it is the game designer who 'understands' these conventions to the point that he can manipulate the player into action that the player himself doesn't even know he's taking.

Egoraptor's Sequelitis essay on Megaman is a great example on how game design itself can be art; as Megaman X's opening level 'teaches' the player how to play without a single explicit instruction.

As such, many things fall under 'art' in this definition...whether it's 'good' art or 'weak' art is determined by how effective it is.

Did you intend to make me cry at that point? If I did, it's good art.

Did you not want me to laugh at that point? If I did, it's bad art.

There's also 'weak' art, where the 'understanding' required to create it is so pedestrian that it's utterly predictable. Like a child's scratchings of shapes vaguely reminiscent of a cat, it's still art and you can appreciate certain artistic choices, but the 'understanding' is lacking.

 

[DoPo]

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.

What about performance art? Especially one in which everybody participates, hence everybody is also an audience? Why is "art" only limited to static things, like on a painting or statues. Heck, people seem to forget the existence of movies, when the question comes to games - have a look at how many people denounce games for, you know, MOVING, when there currently exists a class of art, which very name is derived from its property to move? But what about theatre, or music? How is "art not being fixed in place" some sort of new thing when non-static art has existed from slightly before video games existed - like, thousands of years before. Similarly, the participation of the audience contributing to a given piece is not a radical new concept, either. Dafuq is it that when "art" being mentioned around video games, suddenly, there is pretty much Mona Liza and books?

 

[Lightknight]

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!

I was thinking of Schrodinger here as well. The ol' tree falling in the forest analogy also sprang to mind.

However, you'll recall that observation does not actually make the cat anything other than what it is. If anything, Schrodinger's cat can easily be interpreted as a reductio absurdem showing that human observation actually has no impact on reality. From the cat's perspective, it is quite dead or not dead and us knowing it for sure doesn't change anything about the facts. It just makes us uninformed observers.

A falling tree also produces sound waves that could be heard regardless of receiving devices much the same way a radio station is sending out radio waves even if no radio is in range.

Basically, I'm saying that art is either art or it isn't and us seeing it doesn't change that fact. It merely makes us informed observers on the matter. Opening the box only verifies the condition of the cat, it does not change the condition.

So, to be quite clear, are you saying that the Mona Lisa was not art until the first person to appreciate it, saw it? In my world view, art is quite a broad topic. From crude finger paintings to crap in a can as long as someone used their skill and imagination to produce it. We are only categorizes of the quality of said work. To say that something is not art should be to say that skill and/or imagination were not used in its inception.

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.

If done with skill and imagination, sure. Why wouldn't it be just very poor art? Just as some skills/imaginations can be inferior to others, so too can the medium. Crap would have to be among the most inferior I'd think.

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?

I can't not call it a masterpiece. That still doesn't make it a masterpiece or not a masterpiece. The "given" of the logical question is merely that it is a masterpiece. That was me cheating a bit by way of inserting a presupposed win-condition for me. But the way I think of it is this: If Starry Night had never been seen, would it really make it any less beautiful?

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

Yes, this is a wonderful discussion to have. Thank you too!

 

[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.

What about performance art? Especially one in which everybody participates, hence everybody is also an audience? Why is "art" only limited to static things, like on a painting or statues. Heck, people seem to forget the existence of movies, when the question comes to games - have a look at how many people denounce games for, you know, MOVING, when there currently exists a class of art, which very name is derived from its property to move? But what about theatre, or music? How is "art not being fixed in place" some sort of new thing when non-static art has existed from slightly before video games existed - like, thousands of years before. Similarly, the participation of the audience contributing to a given piece is not a radical new concept, either. Dafuq is it that when "art" being mentioned around video games, suddenly, there is pretty much Mona Liza and books?

Do you believe that a gamer is creating art? What are they creating? I'd say they're not creating anything in the vast majority of cases. I believe the developers are, but not the gamer.

 

[Ratty]

Video Games are an interactive-medium, which means the music, the story, art direction, has nothing to do with it being art.

I disagree, does the cinematography of a film have nothing to do with it being art? The costumes? The props? If you filmed Lawrence of Arabia with the same script but all in one static shot with some random truckers reading the lines would that still be art? You can't unilaterally declare certain aspects of art unimportant. That's like arguing over which brush strokes to the Sistine Chapel Michelangelo made as art, and which ones he was just jobbing on.

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.

How so? Unless you're talking about the most primitive of arcade games from the 1970s and 80s the story informs how we experience the gameplay. It might not be a central aspect, but even for many NES games it was hardly trivial.

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?...


...An example of a game that I think understands it's medium with flourish is the indie game Passage...

You don't need to go to Indie games to find examples of gameplay informing player emotions and thoughts. DooM is a power fantasy that uses solid mechanics, yes combined with art assets, to give the player that feeling of power. On the other side of the coin Silent Hill or even the early Resident Evil games evoke a sense of dread and helplessness mostly through their mechanics. And these are not obscure or new titles.


Ultimately the ivory tower set who live to pretend that what a long dead author meant in some 80 year old short story matters will not be accepting games as art any time soon.

But that doesn't really matter.

What matters is that games speak to millions of people every day. As film was for the 20th century, games are poised to be "the" artform of the 21st.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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"?

Uhh what? I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.

If someone thinks games aren't art then they define "art" differently than you do.
I heard people who define "art" as anything they deem good, so 90% of video games are out
I've heard people who define "art" as anything that creative effort went into so 99% of video games are out
I've heard people who define "art" as anything that wasn't made for profit so 100% of video games are out.


I think the word "art" has been bastardized so much it doesn't have a definition anymore, sort of like "literally" and "bias"

so instead of arguing that video games are or aren't art just make your definition of "art" clear, and ask the dissenters why they disagree.

I don't understand what applies to MGS that doesn't apply to any other game.
My thoughts on "games are art" have changed significantly over the years... god has it really been years.

I used to think something was art if it or an aspect of it does not serve a functional purpose.
Which is an extremely generous definition of art. but I was argued out of that by someone who claimed that most video games are "Products"

for example Call of Duty 1 was art, but when they released the same game again and called it Call of Duty 2 that was a product, but that's all subjective so I don't know what to think anymore.

They said Watchdogs was a 10 year franchise before the first game was released. an artist can't have that thought.

So I guess art is anything made by someone who loves making it. which is doubly subjective and impossible to prove... so... I'm going to stop rambling now

 

[Gorrath]

I was thinking of Schrodinger here as well. The ol' tree falling in the forest analogy also sprang to mind.

However, you'll recall that observation does not actually make the cat anything other than what it is. If anything, Schrodinger's cat can easily be interpreted as a reductio absurdem showing that human observation actually has no impact on reality. From the cat's perspective, it is quite dead or not dead and us knowing it for sure doesn't change anything about the facts. It just makes us uninformed observers.

A falling tree also produces sound waves that could be heard regardless of receiving devices much the same way a radio station is sending out radio waves even if no radio is in range.

Basically, I'm saying that art is either art or it isn't and us seeing it doesn't change that fact. It merely makes us informed observers on the matter. Opening the box only verifies the condition of the cat, it does not change the condition.

This is of course where the analogies break down. A tree falling or a cat surviving are things that manifest in reality without the need for an observer to verify them. I would argue that art does not fall into that same scheme because art requires an observer to be art, a tree doesn't need an observer to fall over and make a sound.

So, to be quite clear, are you saying that the Mona Lisa was not art until the first person to appreciate it, saw it?

Yes, I would argue that the definition of art that I tend to subscribe to would make it so that the Mona Lisa was not art before the first person laid eyes on it. This seems counter-intuitive, but only if a thing's status as art is intrinsic to its design/implementation. I don't think art is intrinsic property to the work, I think it is emergent property that arises from creation of said work to the appreciation of it.

In my world view, art is quite a broad topic. From crude finger paintings to crap in a can as long as someone used their skill and imagination to produce it. We are only categorizes of the quality of said work. To say that something is not art should be to say that skill and/or imagination were not used in its inception.

This was pretty much how I thought about art too, until my other half beat me to death with the view I take now. The issue with the definition of "art as work" is that then, anything and everything is art. If art is everything, then the term "art" becomes useless and meaningless. One can go pretty far the other way too. With the concept of "found art" one does not even need the skill and imagination of an artist, just the emotional response of an observer, in which case you don't need an artist at all to have art, just the audience. This is why I subscribe to the definition that relies on both the work and the observer, it seems to best encapsulate the idea of what art is.

If done with skill and imagination, sure. Why wouldn't it be just very poor art? Just as some skills/imaginations can be inferior to others, so too can the medium. Crap would have to be among the most inferior I'd think.

Sure, if we are using the "art as work" description. But then where does that leave found art? There is no skill or imagination of a creator here, so does that mean there is no found art? Art as an emergent property would allow an audience to reject a piece, not just as "bad" art, but as so facile that it does not qualify as art at all. I don't find crap in a can to even be bad art, I find it to be a pointless exercise in seeing what a person devoid of integrity can do to dupe people with more money than sense. On the other hand, said people with money can in turn accuse me of having no taste or appreciation of the fine art of crapping in a can. We can both argue over it, but neither of us can really be right, since crap in a can's very status as "art" becomes subjective.

I can't not call it a masterpiece. That still doesn't make it a masterpiece or not a masterpiece. The "given" of the logical question is merely that it is a masterpiece. That was me cheating a bit by way of inserting a presupposed win-condition for me. But the way I think of it is this: If Starry Night had never been seen, would it really make it any less beautiful?

Logical win-conditions being built into the question aside (crafty fellow) I do not think Starry Night is as beautiful without an observer, no. After all, deciding that something is or is not beautiful is contingent on it being observed. How could one consider Starry Night beautiful if they can't experience it? Of course you always have the artist as well, who will serve as, likely, the very first (and maybe only) observer of the work. But an audience of one is still an audience.

 

[DoPo]

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.

What about performance art? Especially one in which everybody participates, hence everybody is also an audience? Why is "art" only limited to static things, like on a painting or statues. Heck, people seem to forget the existence of movies, when the question comes to games - have a look at how many people denounce games for, you know, MOVING, when there currently exists a class of art, which very name is derived from its property to move? But what about theatre, or music? How is "art not being fixed in place" some sort of new thing when non-static art has existed from slightly before video games existed - like, thousands of years before. Similarly, the participation of the audience contributing to a given piece is not a radical new concept, either. Dafuq is it that when "art" being mentioned around video games, suddenly, there is pretty much Mona Liza and books?

Do you believe that a gamer is creating art? What are they creating? I'd say they're not creating anything in the vast majority of cases. I believe the developers are, but not the gamer.

Loaded question. The correct answer is "I don't think they cannot be". Sure, maybe not each and every game allows it, but they are certainly predisposed, and in some instances gamers are a really contributing factor. For example, Journey is similar to a performance art piece - having other players is not essential, but are you saying that playing absolutely alone and with others is exactly the same? I'll take the liberty to answer for you: no, playing with others is a distinct experience. Playing with others are distinct expiriences in fact, as Journey offers a Heraclitian adventure and everybody contributes.

And Journey is far from the only example. Even otherwise "mundane" games can award a meticulous player with something unique.


This, for example, is neither the player's doing, nor the developer. Not fully, at least - it's the collaborations between the two parties made it possible. There are many, many such experiences out, and then, each one is separate to the others. Aside from one thing - it's both the players and the developers who made them possible. Together.

 

[Meximagician]

Having sat through a few art history courses, there seems to be a surprisingly limited number of definitions of art. Here's the main definitions I learned and some game examples, though you can probably name some better examples.

Spoiler: Fair warning: this is a long post, what with the examples and all

Art is any process that achieves one or more of the following:

communication of simple reminders or historic events -- edutainment games (Super Solvers: Gizmos & Gadgets!) or games with elements of history or historical fiction (Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars).

appreciation of everyday items or events -- most played-straight sim games, like Sim City or Sim Ant. If the focus is a mundane task, item, or setting, it counts. Even Viscera Cleanup Detail, as it makes one appreciate janitors a bit more and deconstructs common shooter and horror games.

spiritual/religious expression -- Good Fortune, This is A Leap of Faith. I actually really like Good Fortune, as it can also be interpreted as following James 2:17, which warns against velleity in prayer.

self expression -- a well known fact (amongst fans at least) is *that one big spoiler scene* in Final Fantasy VII, is based on the death of Producer Hironobu Sakaguchi's mother. Plenty of other characters from FF7 also deal with losing parental ties.

social/political change -- Gray, The Free Culture Game, Pragaras... and that's just after a quick glance through Newgrounds. Propaganda might have a negative connotation, but it best describes this function.

effecting* mood -- most games, really. From kinship with allies, animosity toward the big bad, or joy/frustration with the mechanics. There's some debate over whether the artist needs to have intended to effect a particular mood or not, and to what extent, both of which are highly contested in academic circles.

So when does a game become art? It usually is, the distinction tends to be more about if it is high art or not. For that they need two or three of the previous points done well.

[small]*as in bring about / produce, you grammar Nazis you.[/small]

Also, if you want to argue critics about games as art, you'll need to start talking about the game mechanics as art. The rules, win/loss conditions, actions, difficulty curve... anything unique to games. Otherwise the counter argument will always be something like "At best that proves videogames depend on more artistic media." The same argument was leveled at cinema, until Man with a Movie Camera was produced explicitly to shut those critics up.

 

[Vigormortis]

In my opinion art is just anything that was created to inspire some sort of reaction, because it's hard to argue any more specific meaning. I've long since given up excluding things from art and resigned to having personal opinions of how good the art is.

This? This right here? This sentiment that you've summed up in just two sentences?

THIS is what people need to start thinking. This is how they need to start approaching this "debate".

Looking at this simply, unbiased, and objectively, video games ARE art. That is not up for debate. The only thing that is up for debate is how high or low brow you believe it to be and of what quality you want to gauge it at.

The whole "are they art or not" debate is as stupid as it is moot. Games are art. Now let's discuss how fine an art they are or aren't; can or can't be.

 

[Vigormortis]

Games move. Does the Mona Lisa move? Exactly.

So I take it you think films, music, and literature[footnote]After all, the pages of a book move, do they not?[/footnote] can't be art either, yes?

I mean...really? You couldn't possibly have typed that in earnest, could you?

 

[RealRT]

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"?

Planescape: Torment, Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Fallout and Fallout: New Vegas (other two are good, but those are masterpieces).

 

[RealRT]

Games move. Does the Mona Lisa move? Exactly.

So I take it you think films, music, and literature can't be art either, yes?

I mean...really? You couldn't possibly have typed that in earnest, could you?

I think he didn't mean that. I think he meant "move" as in "change or cause to change from one state, opinion, sphere, or activity to another". IE influence. So I took it as a pro-games-are-art statement.

 

[Vigormortis]

I think he didn't mean that. I think he meant "move" as in "change or cause to change from one state, opinion, sphere, or activity to another". IE influence. So I took it as a pro-games-are-art statement.

I would certainly hope so. Otherwise it was either a very narrow-minded sentiment or a ridiculous double-standard.

 

[Magmarock]

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"?

Art is a funny thing. I personally consider games to be art but I can also see why others don't. Roger Ebert didn't consider games to be art because they were interact. This caused a lot of drama which was really necessary, because he didn't imply games were less then art he just didn't think they weer part of the genera.

This was because as far as he was concerned art is some expressive and games are interactive their fore games are more about letting the player expressivenesses more so then being used as an outlet to express to the player.



In my opinion
Games are both art and a busyness and just in my personal opinion I tend to prioritise the busyness over the art. Meaning that I seek games that offer good value for money.

However, if you're after a list of games that will bring out strong emotions out of players which is what most people associate art with, then there are tones.

Survival horror games such as Silent Hill and Lone Survivor are good examples of depressing and haunting games. Conkers Bad Fur Day and Portal are good examples of comedy games too.

As for the Australian government banning games, it's mostly the OFLC's fault. Aside from being inconsistent and just terrible at their job, the book of guide lines they use to rate games and movies is horribly vague and outdated. This is the reason why so many things get banned.

 

[Pogilrup]

As much as we we want videogames to be accept by and large as art, we seem to like to label certain games like Gone Home as "walking simulators".

Perhaps those dismissive of video games as art can't see the beauty of a well crafted system of challenges and at the same time we consumed so much challenge-oriented games for so long that we have difficulty stomaching anything else.

 

[Windcaler]

Ultimately the idea of "games are not art" if a fundementally flawed statement. What we really have with that statement is a lack of education in what are is, what it started out as, and how its evolved over thousands of years. I could go on for several days about the history of art over thousands of years but in the last few years Ive found a couple of videos that break things down pretty well. Ill link them both below. They may help you and others understand why artists, artistic experts, and I consider games as unquestionably art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU8bXbSQjE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEX9EOgVig&index=47&list=LLQnv11RtASgNEu5ztLytEGQ