How to argue "Games aren't art."

[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.

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.

Forced art and a copy of art lack expression. Expression is the key word of the definition art I found.

Expressionless or forced paintings/sculpture/games/music simply wouldn't fit the definition.

The entire question of 'are video games art' comes down to the definition of art. the one I use is the one google provides me:

"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."

 

[zen5887]

Just a heads up, I ignorantly haven't read the other posts here except OPs, so forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said or of the conversation has moved on. Or don't I probably should read everything else.

Anyway.

There are lots of games that aren't art. And that's totally okay.

The primary reason for a piece of art existing is to be a piece of art. I has to say something, mean something, challenge something So a table or a gun or a car that functions primarily as a table, gun or car can't be art unless it's context is changed in a way that makes it's primary function to be art. For example, a table I buy at an up market furniture store, no matter how aesthetically pleasing or well designed it is, can't be art. However, if I used it in a piece demonstrating the monotony of the middle class (or something), then people can start calling it art (maybe not good art... But art). This doesn't make it any less of a table though, and that's important. What is and isn't somethings primary function can get messy (especially in pop art), but I guess that's where the subjectivity comes in, and that's why we are having these conversations.

Going back to videogames and we can see there are a bunch of games that don't try to tell a story, they don't ask the player to question their ideas, and they don't really have anything to say. Games like puzzle games, racing games, sports games, strategy games, simulation games, fighting games. There are exceptions within these genres but for the most part these games are a series of objectives with something in the way, and it's the players job to overcome the obstacles, with very little in between. There might be a lore or a backstory, but they are secondary. Who plays Tekken for the story, right? Compare these games to Limbo or Spec Ops: The Line. I feel like there is a pretty clear distinction between games that exist to be overcome, and games that exist to be experienced.

The fun thing is though, these definitely aren't hard and fast rules. I'm sure a bunch of people have had more powerful experiences playing Dark Souls then they'd ever get from any kind of high art, and who am I to deny that? It's not an easy question (which is why I enjoy it so dang much).

 

[gargantual]

What people consider art is highly contextual, the ability for any game in its visuals or sensibilities to engender that reaction in us is possible, despite any of our rigid definitions here. It may be made crudely or depict crudeness. Two people will still consume the media in different context.

There's a point that Kojima sort brought up when talking about risk taking in MGS5 and Cheshire Cat Studios podcast really hit on.

Which is "we're eager to call games 'ART' until they go in directions we're uncomfortable with and they're suddenly garbage? Or unworthy of the definition." One's trash is another's treasure. Our perspectives are our own, even if commonly held.

I see it almost as a holistic add-on to the sentiment "art can't be relevant and not responsible for its messaging." Of course all messaging has to be somewhat responsible but that rule doesn't absolve viewers of responsibility in interpreting what they consume either. Its a two way process. No side should expect each other to just 'fix it'.

Not just for protecting from reinforcement of negative ideas but also to limit knee jerk reacting and misinterpreting what we view based on our perspective and not seeing the bigger picture or how others perceive the same media, its important to have clear, distant, and thorough understanding of WHY certain things resonate with or disturb us.

Just like errant signal said its lazy for a reviewer to just say something is fun, but should explain what about it makes it fun.

we cant accurately 'minority report' how bad of a psychological social impact any media is going to have on all humanity. We don't operate as a hive mind. Even moviebob said something similar concerning his big picture vid after Aurora Colorado. We might have general ideas how influential media can get, but it only resonates negatively where there's no education and balanced understanding of how the world society, civility and decency matter.

 

[carnex]

To be sarcastic, first ask that person to define what ART is. Hint: there is no accepted definition of ART since, however you define it, you can make a counter example to make it invalid.

But realistically best approach if what

-snip-

said.

Paintings are not ART, but ART can take form of a painting. Music is not ART, but ART can take form of music. Sculptures are not ART but ART can take for of a sculpture. Theater performance is not ART but ART can take form of a theater performance.

They are all artistic mediums, form in which ART can take form. And games are the same.

Then let them play Journey. Let them play it alone, at their own pace. And never ask them of it again. Confrontation if counterproductive. You will only entrench them in their beliefs by hitting them over their heads by your own ideas. Subtlety is the key.

 

[Reygoch]

Well,

I usually argue like this. You have art and you have bad art, and after that you have shit imported from china with purpose of selling it to tourists and fools in general.

A decent game has story, 3D/2D graphics, programming, math and many more factors.

Story has to be written and it needs to be relatively good to make a good game (some games can get away with game mechanics but they still need some kind of story).

3D modeling is literally like sculpting but on a different media. You need to have talent, idea and skills to realize it. Same goes for 2D painting and design.

So, those two are without a doubt art. It doesn't necessarily mean it's van Gogh or Picasso (which I personally don't appreciate very much) but it's art non the less.

Programming and math/physics that ties all that together is debatable, but there is some artistic expression in those two. The only thing is that people can't really see it and thus don't consider it art because they think art is something explicitly visual.

So yes, that's how I'd go about arguing "Games aren't art" statement. And I'd also ask for explanation of that statement first.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Does it even matter if people don't consider games art? Would it be so earth shattering that it would stop you from enjoying games anymore?

 

[DoPo]

Does it even matter if people don't consider games art? Would it be so earth shattering that it would stop you from enjoying games anymore?

It quite literally could stop people from enjoying games. Certain games, at least. See, being or not being art is an actual legal matter. As I believe it has been pointed out in this, and many other threads and times the question has been brought up. If video games are legally not considered art, you can, as I said, quite literally not be able to enjoy some of them. Or at least it's going to be a friggin' miracle if you could, considering you won't be able to get them. Art gives an amount of protection of the expression which not-art doesn't get.

 

[krebons12]

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"?

I suppose maybe you should focus on games centered on story (9 Hours 9 Persons 9 Doors, The Walking Dead, etc.) or games that used a fancy artsy style(Thomas Was Alone, The Journey, etc.)

Or, even better maybe, at least to me, games like The Sims, where you are essentially given a canvas, brushes, and paints, and told "Make whatever you like. It can be anything from a beautiful mansion to your interpretation of Hell. Just go nuts." To me, games are an incomplete story that is given to the player to finish, and Sim games show that off quite nicely

 

[krebons12]

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.

Personally, not really. That just seems like getting angry at watching something like the Transformers movies because it's fun to watch the robots beat each other up.