Poll: Are Computer Games Art Or Entertainment?

[pulse2]

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?

I agree, but the question one might be lead to ask is how could you consider something like Gears or CoD to be art when they do not particularly portray beauty or storylines like that of Mona Lisa or Tolkien.

My answer to that is, would you say that a picture of a family member is not considered an art? Or maybe a scribble by a child not being considered art. Or using your feet as paint brushes and stepping all over a piece of paper. Are all these things not considered art because they are unconventional or are deemed different to the norm? No, they are all different forms of art.

Art is massive, and any artist with an idea of creativity knows that, one might say that there is no beauty in Gears nore is there a plot worth talking about, but that's untrue, the time and effort put into making those graphics look that polished so that we know what is going on is creativity, someone had to think outside of the box in order to come up with that engine, those details etc etc.

Sometimes I look at the beauty of games like FF13 and Just Cause and think that they are just as beautiful as an Avatar movie, they have incredible sunsets and scenes that make you gasp and you're not even there, its all just pixels with a background, if a game can have a gasping effect in the same way Avatar, Lord of the Rings, looking at Mona Lisa, standing at the top of the Eiffal Tower or heck, traveling down the alleys of Venice all can have, that game IS art. There is still a difference between good art and bad art, but it is all still art.

 

[Royta]

It's an intermedial artform, plain and simple. It combines artistic design, graphic design, fashion design, 3d design, storytelling, immersion and interactivity (and alot more that I can't think of right now).
Just immersion, interactivity and the fact that it is an 'image' or something we can look at makes it a form of art. It's just an artform that combines a lot of already exsisting artforms to be what it is.

 

[FireDr@gon]

I think that its just because computer games are interactive that the debate sets in - Because with some games you get out what you put in. Like pulse2 said - you can see stunning sunsets etc, but only if you look in the right place... Sandbox RPG's like morrowind allow the player to write their own story, creating right alongside the developers. In a sense the gamer is as much an artist with some games as the developers themselves - some games such as spore or little big planet push this point quite hard.

 

[Staskala]

To me, the idea of putting video games on the same "level" as classical music, literature or paintings (things that I consider art) is utterly ridiculous.
As much as I would like to support the whole "games are art" thing (if only for the sake of self-justification) I cannot do it with a straight face. Same thing goes for movies, by the way.

In the end however, "art lies in the eye of the beholder", what one person considers to be an artistic masterpiece seems utterly crude to another.
The entire argument is as pointless as ever, you will never ever reach a consensus on what is art and what isn't.

Also, distinguishing between art and entertainment makes no sense at all, unless you were forced to visit too many museums during school and thus can't help but associate art with boredom.
In which case I feel sorry for you.

 

[Knusper]

I don't count TV as art, or for that matter, many books unless they are outstanding works of literature. I don't think computer games are any more of an art form than TV.

 

[FireDr@gon]

To me, the idea of putting video games on the same "level" as classical music, literature or paintings (things that I consider art) is utterly ridiculous.
As much as I would like to support the whole "games are art" thing (if only for the sake of self-justification) I cannot do it with a straight face. Same thing goes for movies, by the way.

In the end however, "art lies in the eye of the beholder", what one person considers to be an artistic masterpiece seems utterly crude to another.
The entire argument is as pointless as ever, you will never ever reach a consensus on what is art and what isn't.

Also, distinguishing between art and entertainment makes no sense at all, unless you were forced to visit too many museums during school and thus can't help but associate art with boredom.
In which case I feel sorry for you.

I posted this thread because I felt that games should have the same 'rights' as other art forms. looking at the poll, the majority feel that some computer games at least can be more than entertainment, they can be art too.

I love museums and I consider art to be above entertainment - which is not saying art cannot entertain, simply that it has more impact on society.

 

[Samwise137]

It really depends on the game but I maintain that if a game is done correctly, there should be a balance between art and entertainment.

 

[Denamic]

I don't think making a rape simulator, or the oven game, as basic human rights.

As tasteless as those games are, their makers have a right to make them.
They are fictitious and thus does not harm anyone.
To impose your opinion of them is imposing on their basic human rights to express themselves.
And in effect, giving up your own human right to do such things.

Censorship is a very slippery slope.
Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.
If you ban something for being 'offensive' or 'tasteless', any number of things can also be banned.

You have to tolerate shit you don't like.
It's just how 'freedom' works.

 

[teutonicman]

Both? I thought the original purpose of most artistic mediums was to entertain.

 

[blazearmoru]

I'm sorry, but isn't art itself entertainment ?

 

[Aurora219]

I picked entertainment. Many games are art. But that's not the primary role they play.

 

[FireDr@gon]

We still do have some but most are just made so they can pay the mortgage. I speak of the CoD series and generic run of the mill games like that.

Good point

 

[GiantRaven]

Can art not be entertaining?

Can entertainment not be artistic?

To have a separation between the two seems silly to me. So yeah, both.

 

[loc978]

Both, either or neither. This depends heavily on what one finds entertaining, and how one defines "art". Personally, I say both. I find many video games highly entertaining, and I define art the way mirriam-webster does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1296759465].
Technically, writing one's name in the snow with piss is art. The most annoying 10-minute youtube video of a teenager ranting about nonsense is art. Everything you ever made out of sticks and dirt that had no rhyme, reason or function during your childhood is art.

Roger Ebert was right to correct himself. Video games can never be what he considers high art.
-That is a personal definition.

Video games are objects produced through the conscious use of skill and creative imagination (see above link to definition). Thus they are art.

 

[The Night Shade]

Both the same with films

 

[FireDr@gon]

Can art not be entertaining?

Can entertainment not be artistic?

To have a separation between the two seems silly to me. So yeah, both.

Depends on the person I suppose - some people are bored to death if they visit an art gallery but can't wait to play spore - If your definition of art is simply entertainment then the two concepts shall never part for you.

Some people consider games purely art, some think that they're purely entertainment. I separated the poll into art, entertainment or both so that people who feel either way can vote.

 

[LitleWaffle]

Movies are entertaining but also considered an art. Games could be considered the same way.

 

[C95J]

How can you say that some scenes/levels/cut scenes in games are not art? Both, in my opinion.