Is call of duty an art?

[NicolasMarinus]

Is Rambo/Terminator/2012/Transformers/your (least) favourite dumb blockbuster art?

Whatever you answer here, there's your answer.

Rambo and Terminator might not be art, both movies were incredibly relevant on a social level at the time of release. They suffer from the macho content of the sequels, but I highly recommend that you look at them again.

Rambo (or rather First Blood) is about a Vietnam War veteran who was abandoned by his government and has a tough time getting back to everyday life. The finale is not some bullet rampage like in the sequels (only 1 guy dies in the entire film). Instead he breaks down and cries! Rambo is a man who was once the best of his kind and now is lost and feels totally useless and alone.

Terminator was all about the fear of ever-expanding technology and the dangers it carries with it.

Both are good movies and can't be considered blockbusters since neither performed exceedingly well at the box office.

 

[Auxiliary]

Most definitely not.

 

[ZeroKaiser]

Can an fps be art? Yes.
Can Call of Duty be art? It's a possibility.
Is Call of Duty art? No.
Is Call of Duty trying to be art? Well, that's really your opinion. It's just too gray and brown for me to tell or care.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Absolutely not. Call of Duty is the epitome of what is dragging gaming down as a legitimate form of expression, and it's existence drowns other, far superior games. Games such as Counter-Strike are submerged, and games like ICO are completely forgotten. Thanks Activision!

In what way is Counter Strike more of an art than Call of Duty besides the fact that you don't personally like Call of Duty?

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Is Rambo/Terminator/2012/Transformers/your (least) favourite dumb blockbuster art?

Whatever you answer here, there's your answer.

Rambo and Terminator might not be art, both movies were incredibly relevant on a social level at the time of release. They suffer from the macho content of the sequels, but I highly recommend that you look at them again.

Rambo (or rather First Blood) is about a Vietnam War veteran who was abandoned by his government and has a tough time getting back to everyday life. The finale is not some bullet rampage like in the sequels (only 1 guy dies in the entire film). Instead he breaks down and cries! Rambo is a man who was once the best of his kind and now is lost and feels totally useless and alone.

Terminator was all about the fear of ever-expanding technology and the dangers it carries with it.

Both are good movies and can't be considered blockbusters since neither performed exceedingly well at the box office.

I'm pretty sure Terminator did...

 

[Alexnader]

I believe a work can be classified as "art" if enough conditions are met to a high enough degree, some of which I list here:
1. The work is an expression of at least one person's creativity
2. The Author's intent was to create an artwork (slightly circular I know) by which I mean it meets condition 1 and was either designed to convey some message/emotion/ideal/thing OR to be an artwork on its own (see point 3).
3. It's art for art's sake (this invalidates a large part of point 2, fuck you Modernism)
4. It's way out of the zeitgeist/context in which it was created. I.e. Pure what the crap innovation.
5. I deem it art. (This whole topic is fairly subjective, no point denying it)
6. Enough other people say it's art.

These are some of the guidelines I go by, there are more that I can't remember. Show me some contemporary art and I'm sure I'll come up with something. I just want to emphasise that just meeting one of these points does not make something art. The most innovative porno in the history of humanity would still merely get me off if it did not do 1, 2, 3 or 5.

Edit***
I realised this was kinda OT, so CoD imo ticks point 1 a little bit and that's about it.

So... I think art is an umbrella term that encompasses all that stuff we've been talking about.
And you think art is all of the stuff that for one reason or another falls outside that umbrella.
Roger Ebert thinks art is anything that's not a video game. Let's just take solace in knowing we're both righter than him.

Intriguing.

Anyway I want to clear up a little ambiguity around point 2. What if there's some film maker who (like me) is under the impression that all movies are art. If that person decides to make a movie does that meet point 2's requirement.

The way I've seen this discussion, the venn diagram for your definition of art would be a circle labeled "Creative works" while mine would be a smaller circle within that circle of yours.

As for your question, yes if a random filmmaker set out to make "art" and actually made the Expendables his movie would tick point 2. However like I said it has to tick more than just one of those points to be classified as art.

Oh god The Expendables. Don't remind me.

We'll have to agree to disagree before you bring up the Friday song and my argument crumbles beneath my feet.

I guess I could just keep listing stuff like that till you break but I don't think it's worth causing psychological damage over something like this. Good luck in your wider-than-mine world of art.

 

[HassEsser]

Absolutely not. Call of Duty is the epitome of what is dragging gaming down as a legitimate form of expression, and it's existence drowns other, far superior games. Games such as Counter-Strike are submerged, and games like ICO are completely forgotten. Thanks Activision!

In what way is Counter Strike more of an art than Call of Duty besides the fact that you don't personally like Call of Duty?

Don't get me wrong, Counter-Strike is not an art. That game has it's share of bullshit, just like Call of Duty (though not nearly as severely); but the reason Counter-Strike could be considered "more of an art" is because it actually makes sense. A person can actually be skilled at Counter-Strike, instead of basing half of what they do on luck (read: Call of Duty).

Also, I am extremely good at Call of Duty and I've played every Call of Duty in existence, so before you get off on saying "bias" think about it. Call of Duty is one of the worst franchises nowadays and Infinity Ward can go suck a cock; Treyarch was the best thing that happened to CoD.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Absolutely not. Call of Duty is the epitome of what is dragging gaming down as a legitimate form of expression, and it's existence drowns other, far superior games. Games such as Counter-Strike are submerged, and games like ICO are completely forgotten. Thanks Activision!

In what way is Counter Strike more of an art than Call of Duty besides the fact that you don't personally like Call of Duty?

Don't get me wrong, Counter-Strike is not an art. That game has it's share of bullshit, just like Call of Duty (though not nearly as severely); but the reason Counter-Strike could be considered "more of an art" is because it actually makes sense. A person can actually be skilled at Counter-Strike, instead of basing half of what they do on luck (read: Call of Duty).

Also, I am extremely good at Call of Duty and I've played every Call of Duty in existence, so before you get off on saying "bias" think about it. Call of Duty is one of the worst franchises nowadays and Infinity Ward can go suck a cock; Treyarch was the best thing that happened to CoD.

Wtf does skill have to do with art? How does counterstrike (arguably) requiring more skill make it more of an art?
Does observing a painting or watching a film require skill? No, not especially. Art isn't about skill. Not even slightly.

Basically, you have come on here not to offer any sort of discussion about whether call of duty is an art but simply so you can hate on it for being a game you don't like.

Art is about beauty and creating an emotional response, and you know what? Some of the scenery in MW (2 especially) absolutely blew me away -- that mountain right at the start, and later the helicopters flying low over snowy mountains approaching a gulag. The part in CoD4 where you played 1st person through a nuclear explosion -- Those were incredible scenes.

Counter-strike on the other hand I actually consider to be much more underwhelming in this respect -- not once have I truly been blown away by the environment constructed in Counter-Strike, though obviously this is all down to opinion.

If you are going to say that Call of Duty is not an art, viable arguments include things to the effect of "its multiplayer", "a game is something you win so it cannot be art", etc.
Claiming it isn't art because of its "bullshit" or because it bases "half of what they do on luck", however is not a viable reason at all. Its just you hating on a game you don't like.

 

[Giest4life]

Yes, of course it's art. It's just a game designed to act as the lowest common denominator. Despite it's brown palette, artists have to work to create character models, guns, the environment and it requires technical skill to tie it all up. It's art just as blockbuster action movies are art.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Yes. Doesn't mean it is good art though.

 

[thebolt]

Well I mean...some shooters are art. I don't know why a shooter can't be an art...Call of Duty is just the shitty art like Britney Spears and Twilight.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Yes its art, but its bad art, just like a silly movie, it belongs in a medium which is classified as art, but doesn't challenge a world issue or explore a topic, but instead just wallows in red dawn style chest thumping.

 

[Pvt Dylan]

Well the campaign/story could be considered as such. I liked it, but the multiplayer gives the game a bad name.
Not to say the MP isn't good, I think it's fun.. it's just the generic online gamer, screaming into their mic, swearing up a storm, etc.

Just my opinion.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Yes all games are art they are not all good art but they are all art.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

If you want to see a FPS of true artistig quality try zeno clash. Best surrealism i have seen in games in a long time, if not ever

 

[suitepee7]

Film is art, yet would you call The Expendables art? Same principle.

ahhh he's a crafty one!!! yahh, expendables was... pretty bad.

OT: however that is not to say all FPS games cannot be art. i would say as far as storytelling etc goes, bioshock is a masterpiece in my eyes. one of the greatest stories i've ever encountered in any medium (my own opinion) and i would class it as art to me.

the whole problem though, art is subjective. on the whole, i could not claim call of duty to be art, however i can see how some parts may be considered artistic (CoD4:MW nuke scene springs to mind) but i would not call the whole game a piece of art.

 

[Olecksandr Babiak]

Well, since Call of Duty is not some kind of stupid, colorful, faggotory, commie-liberal bullshit about another "the tests gone wrong" that the Escapist worships , no, it's not art. Because every Call o` Duty is too fun and awesome to be art.

 

[HassEsser]

Wtf does skill have to do with art? How does counterstrike (arguably) requiring more skill make it more of an art?
Does observing a painting or watching a film require skill? No, not especially. Art isn't about skill. Not even slightly.

Basically, you have come on here not to offer any sort of discussion about whether call of duty is an art but simply so you can hate on it for being a game you don't like.

Art is about beauty and creating an emotional response, and you know what? Some of the scenery in MW (2 especially) absolutely blew me away -- that mountain right at the start, and later the helicopters flying low over snowy mountains approaching a gulag. The part in CoD4 where you played 1st person through a nuclear explosion -- Those were incredible scenes.

Counter-strike on the other hand I actually consider to be much more underwhelming in this respect -- not once have I truly been blown away by the environment constructed in Counter-Strike, though obviously this is all down to opinion.

If you are going to say that Call of Duty is not an art, viable arguments include things to the effect of "its multiplayer", "a game is something you win so it cannot be art", etc.
Claiming it isn't art because of its "bullshit" or because it bases "half of what they do on luck", however is not a viable reason at all. Its just you hating on a game you don't like.

Well, you are absolutely right: Call of Duty is a much more visceral experience than Counter-Strike could ever be, considering CS is multiplayer only, and multiplayer is extremely limited in what it can offer in the field of emotional provocation (save for trolling). But, if one were to subjectively review either game, both CS and CoD would not come across as "art". Not even close. I am not going to sit here and say CS is art, but CoD definitely isn't art either, bottom line.

 

[NicolasMarinus]

Is Rambo/Terminator/2012/Transformers/your (least) favourite dumb blockbuster art?

Whatever you answer here, there's your answer.

Rambo and Terminator might not be art, both movies were incredibly relevant on a social level at the time of release. They suffer from the macho content of the sequels, but I highly recommend that you look at them again.

Rambo (or rather First Blood) is about a Vietnam War veteran who was abandoned by his government and has a tough time getting back to everyday life. The finale is not some bullet rampage like in the sequels (only 1 guy dies in the entire film). Instead he breaks down and cries! Rambo is a man who was once the best of his kind and now is lost and feels totally useless and alone.

Terminator was all about the fear of ever-expanding technology and the dangers it carries with it.

Both are good movies and can't be considered blockbusters since neither performed exceedingly well at the box office.

I'm pretty sure Terminator did...

That's your reply? Seriously? Wow, never mind.

 

[jthm]

By explaining that they are as much "art" as movies and cinema like Hostel, or Friday the 13th or James Bond. If you prefer painting analogies, it's as much art as "A Friend In Need" (better known as "Dogs playing poker"). None of those movies have a deeper meaning or message and neither does Call of duty, it's just a good old bit of fun. There's no hidden meaning or deeper message, the audience isn't meant to be moved emotionally and if they are, it bespeaks of an emotionally shallow audience and a very cynical or somewhat inept writer for the story. The movies, the painting and Call of Duty are meant to entertain and nothing else. If you want to read a deeper meaning into it, power to you, but it wasn't the designer's intention.

tl;dr. There's a difference between art & entertainment. Not all entertainment qualifies as art, even if it's in the same artistic medium and style.