How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Lightknight]

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.

You've made an unnecessary given that art requires an observer. This isn't an actual definition by anything I've found. Just something some professors in some places say but isn't actually definitionally true.

Furthermore, I'd posit that the artist is simultaneously creator and observer. Just as I have appreciated or despised my own work, I don't see why creator and observer are necessarily mutually exclusive beings. Ergo, art always has an observer. Even a blind carpenter would appreciate his work by its feel and the memory of the project. So art can never truly be unobserved. It can merely be unobserved by us in particular.

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.

By all accounts the definition of art is very broad. Using skill and imagination no matter how poor are generally all that qualifies it with the general intention for it to be appreciated.

Example from Google: Art, noun, "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 secondary definition discusses the categories of art: "the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance."

My interpretation is definitively true whereas your interpretation was gleaned from people who may be experts in the field (professors) but are not the deciders of terms and their meaning.

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.

Art is not everything even under so broad a definition. Most people agree that there needs to be an element of deliberation about it. The intent to create art. So me designing a radio may look old fashioned and cool, but if my goal is merely a functional radio then it isn't art. If my goal is an old fashioned bad-assed piece of electronics that is meant to be appreciated as art when looked at then it is art.

Producing art is part of human nature. From cave paintings to modern art, the field has fascinated us both as observers and creators and so has flooded into most areas of our life. Therefore we do have a LOT of art. Yes, it's all around us so to say that "art" is really broad is true but not meaningless. Just because art is so common doesn't make it not art anymore than an infinite supply of hats would make them cease to be hats. Most artists have a hard time accepting more amateurish attempts at art as being in a similar vein as what they themselves do with so much skill. This has introduced a misguided and frankly snobbish attempt to then exclude amateur art from the definition of art but that simply isn't true. Artists should instead take refuge in the notion that the observer determines the quality of art and the range of possible quality is immense. From my favorite fine arts like Velasquez's "Las Meninas" [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Las_Meninas_%281656%29,_by_Velazquez.jpg] to a low art painting of a can containing crap which I assure you can be done in an intriguing and artistic manner with enough imagination and skill (though you joked about it).

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.

Is found art not collected and displayed in a manner where it can be most appreciated? That arrangement would be the art and the found materials would be the medium in the same way paint is. Most found art is modified in multiple ways. In fact, I'm not sure of any found art that isn't and could still be considered "art" rather than something neat Ted found on the side of the road.

What is it to you or me or anyone else if someone creates pointless or vapid art? There is so much more interesting art in the world that one guy making crap in the can doesn't matter and our eyes don't rest on their work for even a moment when the likes of Van Gogh are out there for our attention. What harm does it cause us or even the field of art when someone makes crap? Doesn't that just make quality work stand out all the more since proliferation of the market has already peaked even without considering crap shoots?

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.

Starry Night is still Starry Night when the museum lights turn off and its cast in pitch darkness. To rob any artist of any of the full praise he or she deserves for his/her work by claiming credit, even in the smallest part, for it being as pretty as it is would be an atrocity in my mind. To accept your opinion on the term would be for me to both give up hard earned credit for my own work (I used to be a professional blacksmith, made a decent living at it until it turned into a side hobby) and to steal credit for other people's work. I'm sorry, but just as a building was always as tall as it was built before it was officially measured, so too is art just as beautiful or ugly before being seen as it is after being seen. Only the appreciation of the observer has changed, nothing of the painting has. We are the only side of the equation that is misinformed prior to seeing it.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

You'll note from my quote above that I did clarify that players are not creating in the vast majority of games. Obvious examples would be games like Minecraft in which the objects the developer created serve as a paint pallet for the gamer to create with.

However, in this example then both are creating art for different reasons. The developer created the assets (art) being used by the gamer and then the gamer is using those assets to create art.

This doesn't mean that the world the developer created isn't art without the gamer. They still designed the objects and landscape.

I would argue that the art created by developers and the arrangement of the art in unique ways by gamers would be distinct works of art with the developers being able to take fully responsibility for the game and partial responsibility for the gamer's art (since the gamer is using the developers' work) with the gamer only only being able to take partial response for their own art in much the same way found art works.

In the vast majority of games though, the player is only experiencing the developers art through interaction. They are not creating art.

 

[AlexK1991]

Since the game is actually very light, and relatively weak in the gameplay department, you could argue against its necessity as a game, but I found "To the Moon" to be a beautiful game, with one of the more touching stories in the medium. I would argue that it stands as an example of artful storytelling in games.

 

[Racecarlock]

What I'm wondering is whether or not people consider me a bad person for only buying games because they look fun or are fun. Some people seem to say so, but I don't know. I tried art games, and they were just boring to me. I could see all the messages they were trying to tell and it was still as entertaining and engaging as watching paint dry.

 

[AlexK1991]

Not at all. A lot of people look to a combination of story, gameplay, visual design, etc... for fulfillment when playing a game, but a lot of people don't. And then there are people in between who play one game for its aesthetics and design, and less for pure entertainment, but also play games for good old-fashioned dumb fun. As I mentioned earlier, "To the Moon" is one of my favorite games of all time, and it isn't a very good game. I play it for what I consider to be a masterfully told story, and some truly heartbreaking music, but at the same time, the Dynasty Warriors series is one of my favorite game series, and I don't think there's much of anything in that series that could be considered artistic for the sake of being artistic. It all comes down to player preference, and no, as long as you aren't slinging around hate to people who like artsy games, there's nothing wrong with you not personally enjoying them.

 

[James Elmash]

In the same way that painting, in of itself isn't art.

Some games are art. Some paintings are art.

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

See you can't really argue that something is art, when that something is an expression of it.

To compare the latest designed by committee, dev team of 500 FPS to an game that is actually art (I'd cite The Stanley Parable, others may cite Braid) would be like saying "Paintings are art" including the Mona Lisa as well as the painting I did age 5 where the head is larger than the rest of the body.

Pottery can be art, but not all pottery.

Anything that may be considered an art is not art because it is that thing. A sculpture like the statue of David is not art because it is a sculpture.

i may be laboring the point a bit here, but in short, if x is art, its not art because its x.

Another way of arguing that games aren't art could simply to be say that its made of various types of art.

After all, character design, music, backgrounds, story writing, all are art. But a game is made out of these. You could make the point that to say games are art is akin to saying that music is sounds, or that the internet is just ones and zeros. Its made up of these things and as a result transcends it. Games aren't art, they are made of art.

That second point sounded really pretentious, but I kind of think that many of the people who claim that games are art would respond well to that kind of argument

 

[Chemical Alia]

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.

Exactly. Not only this, but the whole concept of the visual arts as a means of self-expression is a fairly modern one as well. Historically the definition of art (in Europe, anyway) has been a skilled trade, which encompassed painting/sculpting/printmaking (visual art), applied art and crafts, science, etc. Which is why the phrase "the art of dentistry/education/whatever", which doesn't use the word in modern context, may be confusing to a lot of people.

 

[Ryallen]

I think of artful video games, I think of Bastion, Transistor, Journey, and Shadow of the Colossus. TLoU is not art, under any circumstances, because a lot of the game isn't meant for experiencing, but interacting. The world is pretty, yes, but it never attracted my attention, as the focus of the game is the characters and the actions they are performing, whereas with Bastion, a lot of the draw is the art style, as well as the soundtrack, with the combat, while important, not being the reason people play it. At least, not to me, anyways. Shadow of the Colossus is another great example of this, with only having 16 action sequences in the entire game and having to trek there, either by horseback or on foot. Art isn't meant to be a singular object on a metaphorical canvas, but rather a collection of objects of any shape and size on a canvas, and the story behind it certainly doesn't add to the singular object's appeal.

 

[Ieyke]

There is no valid argument to make against video games being art.
There are a few games here and there that are specific exceptions where you MIGHT be able to argue that they aren't art, but they are extremely rare.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I like Yahtzee's summarisation of what art is (I think it was Yahtzee that said it, but he could've been paraphrasing somebody else). If what is created doesn't serve a practical application like a tool, then it is art. Of course there is a fine line between what is considered good art and what is considered bad art.

 

[Lightknight]

I like Yahtzee's summarisation of what art is (I think it was Yahtzee that said it, but he could've been paraphrasing somebody else). If what is created doesn't serve a practical application like a tool, then it is art. Of course there is a fine line between what is considered good art and what is considered bad art.

Even then, you have tools and practical appliances that have an entirely different department designing the aesthetic appearance of the tool. Sometimes it is incredibly artistic in it's own right. I mean, is a home not practical despite architecture being an accepted form of art? I think of things like swords that were incredibly practical but have always been elaborately decorated.

Honestly, we're just going to have to come with the term that art is everywhere we look because human beings strive to add the artistic flair to most anything we do. It's core to the human experience to create for the sake of appreciation.

I think the extra step is the intention of making something beautiful or even dreadful. Something that evokes feelings in some way rather than just making something to serve a purpose. Function and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive concepts. If it was I'd never have survived as a professional blacksmith making damascus patterned blades from scratch or etched wrought iron blades with a steel core. People didn't pay me hundreds of dollars for a knife. They paid me hundreds of dollars for a beautiful or cool knife. In other words, they paid for the art, not the tool.

 

[Lightknight]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

 

[Charli]

It boils down to 'I don't like nor am interested in the medium therefore to me it isn't art' for a larger percentage

However as a larger majority grow up with video gaming being part of their lives the larger conscious opinion will change.

The entire argument has been bickered about to death and the side that argues it isn't really never comes up with a better defence than 'but it can't be, because it isn't', and shouting it louder.

Now is the time to play the waiting game and wait for half of them to inevitably die off. Because half of them are over 60.

 

[Windcaler]

What I'm wondering is whether or not people consider me a bad person for only buying games because they look fun or are fun. Some people seem to say so, but I don't know. I tried art games, and they were just boring to me. I could see all the messages they were trying to tell and it was still as entertaining and engaging as watching paint dry.

Theres an old saying "I dont know much about art but I know what I like" and I feel that falls into your statement really well. Many artistically focused games have trouble getting to the audience (the cat and the coup being a prime example IMO). Theres nothing wrong with just buying a game that you enjoy and forgoing the discussion about games being art or the artistic merit within the game. However even some AAA games are art. Dark souls, Bioshock, Far cry 3, and many more are good depictions of video games as art and most people have bought them solely for the "fun factor"

Ultimately its your money and only you can decide whats worth buying and whats not. Buy what you want, play what you want, and dont worry about the artistic discussion if you want. That doesnt make you a bad person, just someone who isnt interested in the discussion

 

[OneCatch]

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

As Zhukov said, without a concrete definition of 'art', it's difficult to make an objective argument. And defining 'art' would itself probably take you hours of further argument, and that's even assuming you could reach an agreement. So I'd instead argue by explicitly comparing to other forms of media which are commonly or generally accepted as a suitable medium for art. Film, books, music, etc.


For example, most would agree that The Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are art (or at the very least that they have artistic and thematic elements). Spec Ops: The Line is basically the same except it messes with the agency of the character in order to concentrate on some of the themes of the book/film. Thus, art.

Now I'd agree that most games aren't quite on par with films or books when it comes to thematics, but that doesn't mean that they can't. We are seeing steady improvement, with even straightforward shooter series like Crysis gradually transitioning into having overarching themes. For Crysis you've got the whole transhumanism thing being brought to light in the latter games for example, or in the BioShock series the games revolve around Randianism, cultism, and religious fundamentalism/dictatorship, respectively.
In some cases, games have actually surpassed film; the Ukranian studios behind Metro and S.T.A.L.K.E.R have become renowned for combining traditional Western paranormal horror elements with radioactive postapocalyptic settings to create their own niche genre - and it's bloody effective. The film 'Chernobyl Diaries' tried to emulate it, and even though it was made by an otherwise successful horror director, it was utterly crap.

In terms of pure visuals, draw comparison between 'artistic' effects in films or artwork, and those that are increasingly used in games. Sanctum, Dishonored, Borderands, even things like TF2 have extremely distinctive artstyles. One can't have it both ways - if things like A Scanner Darkly or Waltz with Bashir are defined as 'artistic' partly on the merits of an original visual presentation, then presumably games should be also.

Also talk music in games and it's effectiveness. Point out that even people like Hans Zimmer are moving into video game soundtracks. Notable mentions; Metro 2033 / Last Light, Crysis soundtracks.

Then I'd move to the experimental/indie fringe. They tend to have the freedom to be more... inventive than mainstream releases. I'd draw a comparison to arthouse cinema in some cases. Things like AntiChamber, Papers Please, Slender. In many cases developed by a person or a small team who had an original idea and decided to express it, except they made a game instead of making the films Primer, or 1984, or The Blair Witch Project, or the books A Wrinkle in Time, We, or The Mist.

 

[James Elmash]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

If a factory produced paintings on mass to be sold cheaply. That lacks the artistic expression that would make something art (Based on the result of googling definition of art). Then that painting wouldn't be art.
If a school child with no interest in art has to paint a given scene for school or fail, then that too would lack artistic expression.

 

[Ieyke]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

If a factory produced paintings on mass to be sold cheaply. That lacks the artistic expression that would make something art (Based on the result of googling definition of art). Then that painting wouldn't be art.
If a school child with no interest in art has to paint a given scene for school or fail, then that too would lack artistic expression.

A copy of art is still art.
Forced art is still art.
They're just not the original copy and possibly not GOOD art, respectively. Neither is relevant to whether they're art or not.

 

[Henkie36]

This is like people 80+ years ago saying that movies aren't art. But since then, we got movies like Fantasia, which I am more inclined to put into the category art than entertainment. Games have been around for about 40 years now, but it wasn't until 10 years ago that they started dominating mainstream media. Before that, games were exclusively for weird geeks. Nowadays, people who claim they have never played games are simply liars. My point? The tides are turning, and in favor of games. I don't say that all games are art. Something like CoD Ghosts is such a sea of mediocrity and military fetich porn even a Michael Bay movie would discard it. (Which incidentally also aren't art) But a game like Shadow of the Colossus is much closer, and just the design of The Sands of Time triology make it worth a look. So games may not be art yet, but I can certainly see it happening in the next 10 years or so.

 

[Artaneius]

Games have been around for about 40 years now, but it wasn't until 10 years ago that they started dominating mainstream media. Before that, games were exclusively for weird geeks.

Honestly, seeing how poor the gaming industry has become with making most games for the lowest common denominator, I honestly would of preferred games being exclusively for the "weird geeks". We would be playing a true successor to Quake or Unreal Tournament now instead of CoD.