Is call of duty an art?
- Thread starter luccadeas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
((TL;DR at the bottom.))luccadeas said:
I think a lot of people have a debilitating mental shorthand for what makes something Art. To a lot of people, something can't be art unless it's good. And at first pass, that seems fair. After all, there's a reason the Mona Lisa is displayed in museums and my five-year-old cousin's crayon doodles aren't. But as an artist, I spend a lot of time thinking about what makes something art and what makes something not art, and I've come up with two basic qualifications.
To be classified as art, the piece in question must:
1: Use a audio or visual medium
2: Engage the viewer mentally, physically or emotionally.
So, if you can hear it or see it, and it makes you think, feel or act, then it's art.
This brings me back to my first statement. Does Art have to be good to deserve that capital 'a'? Well, no. The ability to decide what is and isn't Art isn't really something that any man should be allowed to make. The phrase "one man's trash, another man's treasure" really comes into play here. Even if one critic swears up and down that something isn't Art, another critic will praise it for its genius. For example, Justin Bieber. Is he the greatest singer? Hell no. Is he still a singer? Does he still engage a (very large) crowd emotionally? Bloody hell does he ever. The same is true for, say, Blue Oyster Cult. So to say "Justin Bieber is not an artist", you are one very short step from saying "Blue Oyster Cult is not a group of artists." I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for that statement. I have already. I won't back down on it.
This is also true in the case of video games. In many cases, video games are a prime example of the situation I listed above. Why is Bioshock Art and Call of Dfuty Simulation? A poster above likened games like CoD to paintings of famous wars. So really, what's the difference between this:
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/gallery/95/4.jpg
and this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZUmTdeaoiQ
I couldn't figure out how to get it to embed. Sorry.
That painting is called The Death of General Wolfe. The artist, Benjamin West, rented out theatres and exhibited just that painting. He put it on the stage for about half an hour, and people would come in, sit down, and look at it. There were line ups. This painting, which depicts the death of Canadian/English hero General Wolfe, the history of whom I won't get into here, was so topical and horrifying to the people of England that they would stand in line for hours just to see that painting, and then when they got out of the theatre, some of them would get back in line so they could see it again.
The second is IGN's gameplay trailer of CoD. You all know it, I don't need to get into the history of it.
So here's the difference. The first one is static. It shows you a single scene of a battle. Hell, it's not even a very accurate scene. Only one of the officers presented in that painting were around Wolfe when he died, the rest of them were off, y'know, being officers and making sure the battle went right.
Y'know what else does that? Call of Duty. Except it does it better - it does it interactively. I'm not familiar enough with the games to know if the battles in that game are historically accurate or not, but my war-buff brother seems to like them so I'm willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that not all of them are off. War Games (the FPS sub-genre I group games like CoD, Bad Company, and any other RTS that is a game about a fictional or nonfictional war in which the player controls a soldier) take the genre of Art representing war and put the viewer in it.
How is that not Art? This is the kind of thing I get really excited about. Video games as an art form can do something that artists throughout history have dreamed off. I assure you, Renaissance artists would cream themselves if they were told that one day, people would be able to not just view art, but be a part of it. Video games can do everything every other medium of Art wishes it could do. They make the viewer a part of the Art.
TL;DR So is Call of Duty an Art? Yes. Is it good Art? No. It could do a lot better. But it's still Art, and it still excites me.
I would not call Call of Duty a piece of art but there are other FPS that I would consider art, the obvious example being Bioshock.
Competitive multiplayer games as a whole aren't really art to me, if I was to compare them to anything they would be more like sports, though they aren't quite that either. But really, it's all pretty much subjective when it comes to art.
Competitive multiplayer games as a whole aren't really art to me, if I was to compare them to anything they would be more like sports, though they aren't quite that either. But really, it's all pretty much subjective when it comes to art.
...I dunno...
If you look at it from an "artsy" perspective, then sure. Then again, if you look at it that way, dirt is art too.
So, I'll say no. Some shooters can be art, like Half-Life 2 (I consider it art, anyway) and such. But not Call of Duty, that's just entertainment. And bad entertainment at that, in my opinion.
If you look at it from an "artsy" perspective, then sure. Then again, if you look at it that way, dirt is art too.
So, I'll say no. Some shooters can be art, like Half-Life 2 (I consider it art, anyway) and such. But not Call of Duty, that's just entertainment. And bad entertainment at that, in my opinion.
I'm of the opinion that some games are art, while games like CoD are more-or-less equivalent to a Michael Bay film or some dodgy "spy action" novel.
No, not a chance.
Call of duty is an excellent game fearturing a war that could happen in an alternate reality where every government agency on the planet is incompetant except the military. Problem is the game doesnt really give a good look at the "horrors of war" which is really the only emotional connection an artist could give to a viewer, the other potential saving grace is the development of characters and in my opinion there is none.
So no, I dont see anything in the least bit artistic about call of duty. Thats not to say that future COD games couldnt be art but none that I can think of (and I havnt played them all) come close to it
Call of duty is an excellent game fearturing a war that could happen in an alternate reality where every government agency on the planet is incompetant except the military. Problem is the game doesnt really give a good look at the "horrors of war" which is really the only emotional connection an artist could give to a viewer, the other potential saving grace is the development of characters and in my opinion there is none.
So no, I dont see anything in the least bit artistic about call of duty. Thats not to say that future COD games couldnt be art but none that I can think of (and I havnt played them all) come close to it
Yes, all videogames are... I don't see how CoD is any less of art than any other game out there...
Just that it is a game and games can be considered "art", it doesn't mean every game there is is art.
All music is sounds, but not all sound is "music"* (* By the definition of theory of music).
There are paintings that are aesthetic works instead of "art works".
Not every game has to be a art piece. I would hate if every game would be "art" because then we would lose "games" it their essence.
In my opinions, Games can be art, but CoD isn't art - nor does it have to. But if the makers of the game say there is "art" in it or it is "art" I will change my opinion. Since if artist makes something to be "art" then it is "art" - even if it couldn't be defined as art.
"Art" is something that is made to be "art". Something is not automatically art - example, if the wall decorations I made and framed would be called art I would be insulted, since I did not make them to be art, so you calling them art would be defying its reason for existence and being created. The Meta-level idea of those decorations are meant to be aesthetic pieces to cover the wall and prevent it from radiating heat on my ass when I sleep.
In short:
If the creator of the piece says ' this is meant to be "art"!' then it is art. But if the creator says it is meant to be a 'game' then it is a game.
All music is sounds, but not all sound is "music"* (* By the definition of theory of music).
There are paintings that are aesthetic works instead of "art works".
Not every game has to be a art piece. I would hate if every game would be "art" because then we would lose "games" it their essence.
In my opinions, Games can be art, but CoD isn't art - nor does it have to. But if the makers of the game say there is "art" in it or it is "art" I will change my opinion. Since if artist makes something to be "art" then it is "art" - even if it couldn't be defined as art.
"Art" is something that is made to be "art". Something is not automatically art - example, if the wall decorations I made and framed would be called art I would be insulted, since I did not make them to be art, so you calling them art would be defying its reason for existence and being created. The Meta-level idea of those decorations are meant to be aesthetic pieces to cover the wall and prevent it from radiating heat on my ass when I sleep.
In short:
If the creator of the piece says ' this is meant to be "art"!' then it is art. But if the creator says it is meant to be a 'game' then it is a game.
Art: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."SinisterGehe said:
Some game that millions of people buy and love and is one of the biggest and most known FPSes in gaming certainly falls under the "appealing" and "more than ordinary significance" categories, thus making it art...
I find anything that can entertain is art. Obviously everyone has a different definition of what art is and since there is no true definition for art I find that perfect. Why? Because everyone is looking for a certain pieces to be entertained.
Pieces of a game people may see as art like graphics, design, music, game play, sound, story, voice-acting, cinematics, atmosphere, etc. These are all very important and to make a great experience so you have to judge it by all those quality's.
From what I've heard, COD players love the fast paced game play, atmosphere and popular online multi-player, sounds like art to me. May not be the abstract, original, amazingly-designed, great story, well-characterized, immersing powerful experience you want it to be to reach your standards, doesn't mean it can't be art.
One thing to make clear though, I don't believe all games, movies and music are equal. Clearly some have far more quality than others and not everyone will be able to see that or at least every piece.
Pieces of a game people may see as art like graphics, design, music, game play, sound, story, voice-acting, cinematics, atmosphere, etc. These are all very important and to make a great experience so you have to judge it by all those quality's.
From what I've heard, COD players love the fast paced game play, atmosphere and popular online multi-player, sounds like art to me. May not be the abstract, original, amazingly-designed, great story, well-characterized, immersing powerful experience you want it to be to reach your standards, doesn't mean it can't be art.
One thing to make clear though, I don't believe all games, movies and music are equal. Clearly some have far more quality than others and not everyone will be able to see that or at least every piece.
I don't see how we can defend games as art and cast others out merely because they, are not to our tastes or the general publics, it's a double standard. I see games as art because all games have a design aspect, as we'd see in picture, paintings, sculptures or films. Most games feature music, as we'd see in music and films. Many games feature scripts, stories and acting as we see in stage and films and finally a lot of games feature compositions of all of these, choreographed in such a way as to set an atmosphere. Call of Duty is no different and features all of these and therefore is an art. All games are art, some are the Mona Lisa, some are a banksy original and others are a two year olds abstract scribblings.
I think everything I want to say has already been said.
So instead I'll just quietly muse that the topic title seems off, like it should be "Is call of duty art", since adding the an makes it feel more like it is asking if the act of playing call of duty is an art.
Hard to word it correctly, but seems like there is a subtle difference between "Is dancing an art?" and "is dance art?".
So instead I'll just quietly muse that the topic title seems off, like it should be "Is call of duty art", since adding the an makes it feel more like it is asking if the act of playing call of duty is an art.
Hard to word it correctly, but seems like there is a subtle difference between "Is dancing an art?" and "is dance art?".
And yet...plenty of film or art critics throw out plenty of bad films or odd displays, often at cross purposes with other critics of different tastes. It doesn't call into question if the entire medium is art or not, its merely debating the artistic merits of a particular piece. Likewise for music.
The single player campaign for sure! The moment in MW1 when you get nuked and the moment in MW2 where the nuke goes off in space and the EMP in DC were just amazing, more emotionally involving than a war film (not the sad parts though)
