Poll: Are Computer Games Art Or Entertainment?

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Definitely both.

Some games are made to be art (shadow of the collosus, Persona 4, etc).

And some are pure entertainment (Halo, Brawl, Team fortress 2, etc).

And some fall in between.

 

[dorkette1990]

Well, as a game artist, I tend to think of them as art. If movies are art (which they are), then games are. Yes, they entertain, but that's their function - all art has a function. Games involve many of the key design principles of art - composition, mood, theme. Anything applicable to a painting can be applied to a video game. I don't understand why a game isn't art - the environment was carefully designed and painted and the characters rendered and animated to create an interactive artistic piece.
If games aren't art then I suppose Rodan's work isn't art, because all he did was model clay maquettes and send them to marble sculptors. Or Maya Lin isn't an artist because the Vietnam War Memorial isn't art, it's just a structure.

 

[FireDr@gon]

i might have seen about 12 of these topics since i started going around in these forums. it's like a kid who keeps asking what flavor of ice cream you like.

If you feel that the topic has been done to death and it bores you, why waste your time posting on the thread?

At the end of the day, it's a subject that people find interesting and have lots of different veiws on, so of course it's going to appear on the forums alot - thats what forums are for - discussing stuff like this.

censorship should be self regulated - so if you don't like the topic, dont read it.

 

[FireDr@gon]

Well, as a game artist, I tend to think of them as art. If movies are art (which they are), then games are. Yes, they entertain, but that's their function - all art has a function. Games involve many of the key design principles of art - composition, mood, theme. Anything applicable to a painting can be applied to a video game. I don't understand why a game isn't art - the environment was carefully designed and painted and the characters rendered and animated to create an interactive artistic piece.
If games aren't art then I suppose Rodan's work isn't art, because all he did was model clay maquettes and send them to marble sculptors. Or Maya Lin isn't an artist because the Vietnam War Memorial isn't art, it's just a structure.

Very good points. Do you believe that games get the same 'rights' as other forms of art such as a leonardo da vinci or van gogh?

 

[Robert2812]

They're purely entertainment from my point of view. I don't get why people gotta label it as art just to defend that they still play games.

... and let the flame wars begin.

Nice to see the Escapist forums havent degraded to a degrading cesspool of over-valued self opinion.

 

[lacktheknack]

Games are toys, not art

Where does this leave the likes of Silent Hill 2, which I did not have a fun time playing, yet it's still one of the best games ever made?

Not all games are art, but if NO games are art, then I have no idea what parallel dimension the likes of Silent Hill, The Path, and their ilk are from.

 

[FireDr@gon]

I recall reading a similar debate in new scientist a while ago; they got some big names in art and games development to have their say, it was pretty interesting.


As far as defining art goes:

Wikipedia is not an academic source, but it is govered by the people so using their definition of art would be appropriate.

 

[Electrogecko]

Games have infinite possibilities. They are the combination of all forms of art and entertainment. This debate is absurd.

 

[Thaius]

Art is entertaining. All art forms are also entertainment, be it literature, film, whatever. So... at their core, art. But seeing as pretty much all "entertainment" is comprised either of art or sport, it's also entertainment.

 

[Ren3004]

Mostly entertainment. On occasion, a game comes along that can be considered a work or art.
But just because a game isn't art doesn't mean it can't be fun, nor that it can't be good. Say... Call of Duty. The games, in my opinion, are fairly good. I have fun with them. But they are still pretty much pieces of entertainment, made with the intent to sell as much as possible. But when a studio takes their time to create a world with a rich backstory, when they make a game that seems like it has the intent to tell a story, or when they make a world that is a delight to explore, where you can get lost and forget about the main storyline, I believe that can be considered art.

It's like films, or music. There are works of art. And then there's the summer flicks and the pop singers. They're not necessarily bad, simply entertainment, with low artistic value, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying them for what they are.

 

[Fidelias]

Both, games are both art and entertainment. The same way a movie is art and entertainment and the same way a book, comic or picture are art and entertainment, you create an art to entertain.

It takes a tremendous amount of dedication, creativity and love for what you do to create a great playing and looking game and a game can look as beautiful as art even without telling a story, it can tell a story equal to that of a good book even without looking beautiful. The same emotions that a painting can capture is the same emotions a game can capture, one could say that a game captures more because games are an expression of emotions. The expression of emotions and creativity is the epitome of what art stands for.

This is exactly the way that I think of games. People try to say they aren't art because they aren't as pretty as paintings, or have as good a story as a book. But the thing is, games aren't the same as paintings, or books, or movies; they're different. You can't judge their artistic value soley on other forms of media. (Besides which, I believe there actually are games with better stories as books and better visuals as paintings)

And yeah, I want games to be declared as another form of artistic media because it would make me feel better. I mean, I love gaming. I love it more than books or movies. But my entire life people have thought of me as some kind of child for playing them. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not whining or anything. I just kind of ignore these people. But it's just frustrating that as gamers, we are crucified with this kind of backwards thinking, while people who love books, or movies don't have the same criticisms as we do. Is it really childish to want a little recognition for our hobby?

 

[dorkette1990]

Well, as a game artist, I tend to think of them as art. If movies are art (which they are), then games are. Yes, they entertain, but that's their function - all art has a function. Games involve many of the key design principles of art - composition, mood, theme. Anything applicable to a painting can be applied to a video game. I don't understand why a game isn't art - the environment was carefully designed and painted and the characters rendered and animated to create an interactive artistic piece.
If games aren't art then I suppose Rodan's work isn't art, because all he did was model clay maquettes and send them to marble sculptors. Or Maya Lin isn't an artist because the Vietnam War Memorial isn't art, it's just a structure.

Very good points. Do you believe that games get the same 'rights' as other forms of art such as a leonardo da vinci or van gogh?

Hm, that's a good question. I think video games are less comparable to the old master painters and more to the sculpting studios. In that case, the work itself, not the artist, gets the recognition because so many artists worked on the project. For example, most marble statues had several artists or an artist and assistants working on it. The original concept was created by...let's say Bernini, but the art itself might've been created by several dozen people. So in this case, the art itself certainly deserves recognition the same way a famous statue does, although the collective artists' efforts may not be recognized as individuals.

 

[JordanXlord]

Games are toys, not art

-10 Rep with JordanXlord Productions


if Games are just toys

then Movies and books are just toys

Games are like a Movie or book they are a media

Video games have proven to be interactive media and give the Player joy and Sorrow (like a Movie)

Media=Art i hope you get that

 

[spartan231490]

They're purely entertainment from my point of view. I don't get why people gotta label it as art just to defend that they still play games.

... and let the flame wars begin.

It's a valid opinion. I felt much the same way until I realized that music and literature are considered art. After that, I started thinking about it and realized that my definition of art is anything that evokes powerful emotions, so many games definitely fit that category. What I meant to say it, I don't use the fact that games are art to defend the fact that I play. I honestly don't give a rat's ass about art, but if I had to say one way or the other, I would call games art.

OT: Games are both, art and entertainment.

 

[Video Gone]

Why should they just be one? Not all films are art, and not all films are entertainment either.

...Yeah, I don't really have much else to say about that, since I think I summed my opinion up pretty well. Congrats me.

Games are toys, not art

-10 Rep with JordanXlord Productions


if Games are just toys

then Movies and books are just toys

Games are like a Movie or book they are a media

Video games have proven to be interactive media and give the Player joy and Sorrow (like a Movie)

Media=Art i hope you get that

Games aren't a media. They're a medium.
I agree with you, though.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

Of course games are art. They're also way more complicated and harder to produce than books and movies, which are also considered art.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Not this topic yet again...

"Is [genre] possibly subjectively-meaningful to someone else?"
It's about as pointless as asking "Can I have an opinion on something that matters to me?"

So my counter-question is this:
"If art is a measure of personal/emotional response, do we really have to debate whether or not it exists?"

 

[FireDr@gon]

Well, as a game artist, I tend to think of them as art. If movies are art (which they are), then games are. Yes, they entertain, but that's their function - all art has a function. Games involve many of the key design principles of art - composition, mood, theme. Anything applicable to a painting can be applied to a video game. I don't understand why a game isn't art - the environment was carefully designed and painted and the characters rendered and animated to create an interactive artistic piece.
If games aren't art then I suppose Rodan's work isn't art, because all he did was model clay maquettes and send them to marble sculptors. Or Maya Lin isn't an artist because the Vietnam War Memorial isn't art, it's just a structure.

Very good points. Do you believe that games get the same 'rights' as other forms of art such as a leonardo da vinci or van gogh?

Hm, that's a good question. I think video games are less comparable to the old master painters and more to the sculpting studios. In that case, the work itself, not the artist, gets the recognition because so many artists worked on the project. For example, most marble statues had several artists or an artist and assistants working on it. The original concept was created by...let's say Bernini, but the art itself might've been created by several dozen people. So in this case, the art itself certainly deserves recognition the same way a famous statue does, although the collective artists' efforts may not be recognized as individuals.

I agree that sculpture is a more suitable example. I think what's important about computer games being recognised as art is that the creators that put the effort in don't see their work mutilated in the name of profit. Protecting the work also allows future generations to enjoy it in an unaltered state.