Poll: Are Videogames Art?

[Adrian Neyland]

Why cant art be made with entertainment in mind, if art cannot be enjoyed what is the point, most film is made with entertainment in mind, but you wouldn't deny film to be art.

Why? Do you consider movies art? They were originally a novelty made, for as you say, entertainment purposes. Not all games are made with selling in mind, just look at the indie scene. Hell, there is alot of stuff on newgrounds which makes an artistic statement which far surpasses most of the drivell that apparantly counts as art these days. In fact, why can at not be interactive? in double fact, all art is interactive. You have to think. Draw your own conlusions when it comes to all art, and that in turn inspires some amazing arguments.

I don't consider film to be art, I don't consider books to be art. Art for me are made to give a inside into what the mind of the artist if it's made with entertainment as a main thing then that can never be archived. And if it's interactive it's more about you and the same problem happens.

Film, Books and interactive entertainment are perfectly capable, even more capable than traditional art forms, of providing an incite into an artists mind, you points are vague, poorly thought out and flawed, art goes completely counter to the definition you've provided, saying art can't entertain, COME ON, you must be joking.

 

[Nudu]

Maybe it's my lack of culture, but I don't have any good definition of art in my head, so what comes to my mind is paintings and sculptures and the like. I call video games, movies, books, TV etc. mediums of entertainment.

I mean, dutch porn is called art these days. What's the definition?

 

[Adrian Neyland]

not this shit again......please not this shit again.

As long as there are video-games and people to make and play them, this will always come up, so get used to hearing this, it will be a question that will only be asked more and more frequently.

 

[Adrian Neyland]

Maybe it's my lack of culture, but I don't have any good definition of art in my head, so what comes to my mind is paintings and sculptures and the like. I call video games, movies, books, TV etc. mediums of entertainment.

I mean, dutch porn is called art these days. What's the definition?

You are probably not uncultured (well I don't know) I don't think anyone has a definitive definition of what art is, it is a completely metaphysical concept that is incredibly hard to get your head around.

 

[linwolf]

If it's interactive it isn't art. If it's made with entertainment in mind it isn't art.

So music can never be art, because if it´s not made with entertainment in mind, it´s meant to make some sort of statement or convey emotions which requires interpretation, which I´d call interactive.
The same goes for paintings, because without interpretation their only purpose is to look pretty.

Music is a grey zone of me. But for painting and partly music the main focus isn't to entertainment. And no with interactive I mean being able to change things, being able to observe have nothing to do with interactivity.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

This sort has been done to death

My answer?

Art is subjective... and people are full of crap.

What ever way you look at it, no one will agree on 'does (subject) = art' topics. Whether it be by honest opposing opinions or baseless trolling, these topics descend into the realms of stupidity REALLY FAST.

EDIT: Honestly, I wish games weren't ever brought into this debate. The only people who seem to contribute are people looking to exonerate themselves from a guilty pleasure and convince themselves it has more meaning then simple entertainment i.e To make their god damn hobby seem more important.

I see a platform capable of art for sure. I don't yet see an audience mature enough to make it so.

 

[linwolf]

Why cant art be made with entertainment in mind, if art cannot be enjoyed what is the point, most film is made with entertainment in mind, but you wouldn't deny film to be art.

Why? Do you consider movies art? They were originally a novelty made, for as you say, entertainment purposes. Not all games are made with selling in mind, just look at the indie scene. Hell, there is alot of stuff on newgrounds which makes an artistic statement which far surpasses most of the drivell that apparantly counts as art these days. In fact, why can at not be interactive? in double fact, all art is interactive. You have to think. Draw your own conlusions when it comes to all art, and that in turn inspires some amazing arguments.

I don't consider film to be art, I don't consider books to be art. Art for me are made to give a inside into what the mind of the artist if it's made with entertainment as a main thing then that can never be archived. And if it's interactive it's more about you and the same problem happens.

You have a really shallow view of games then. Interactive media can get you inside an artists mind more than any other medium, as you are the person. You are experiencing what made them think in this manner.

It has nothing to do with being shallow. Game can and have invoked strong emotion in me. But for me that is not enough to make it art. When something is made with entertainment in mind, the emotion it invoked is made to be part of the entertainment.

 

[zeldafan1593]

It all really depends on if it's trying to be art or not.


On one hand, you have games like Fallout 3 that try to convey a powerful message (Fallout's specific one being nuclear warfare is never a choice) Games like this can be considered "art."

On the other hand, you have games like Civilization that just try to make sure you have a good time without having to go the the generic message dispenser just to get the game moving. These games can't be labeled "art" and should just be played as a game with no real backthought to what's happening.

 

[Thaliur]

If movies, photography and scultures are art, games are, too.

Even better, except for most JRPGs, they are inherently interactive, drawing the viewer/cosumer/player in even more than any other form of art will ever be able to.

 

[linwolf]

Why cant art be made with entertainment in mind, if art cannot be enjoyed what is the point, most film is made with entertainment in mind, but you wouldn't deny film to be art.

Why? Do you consider movies art? They were originally a novelty made, for as you say, entertainment purposes. Not all games are made with selling in mind, just look at the indie scene. Hell, there is alot of stuff on newgrounds which makes an artistic statement which far surpasses most of the drivell that apparantly counts as art these days. In fact, why can at not be interactive? in double fact, all art is interactive. You have to think. Draw your own conlusions when it comes to all art, and that in turn inspires some amazing arguments.

I don't consider film to be art, I don't consider books to be art. Art for me are made to give a inside into what the mind of the artist if it's made with entertainment as a main thing then that can never be archived. And if it's interactive it's more about you and the same problem happens.

Film, Books and interactive entertainment are perfectly capable, even more capable than traditional art forms, of providing an incite into an artists mind, you points are vague, poorly thought out and flawed, art goes completely counter to the definition you've provided, saying art can't entertain, COME ON, you must be joking.

But you argument that is build up on personal attack against me aren't. You don't respect my opinion and I aren't goner respond to you again.

 

[Treefingers]

Sometimes.

I think it straddles an interesting line between sport and art.

 

[Gigano]

Of course they are.

This would follow already from the fact that they encompass several traditional forms of art - music, animation, cinematography, manuscript, visual design, (voice) acting - but the interactive dimension, and the "choice" of how to experience all those it give, might well constitute an art form in and of itself.

Just as a choose-your-own-adventure book is still literature (if seldom particularly inspired works of such), adding an interactive element to a digital storyline does not rob it of its status of being a storyline, nor of being able to convey messages and themes just like film or books. Both when the game resemble these by featuring little interactivity [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.301706-Game-review-Swan-Song], and when it make use of its interactive element as a part of the storyline [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/5157-Review-Braid] - merging gameplay and story - is there a story present which is told to us, and which we can react to emotionally, interpret, and evaluate on its artistic merit.

Of course, just like Hollywood blockbusters are seldom good works of art, many games aren't so either. Their messages may be trivial and predictable, the visual design uninspired and bland, the story lackluster and filled with incoherences, the music generic, the voice acting flat etc.; None of which means it isn't a cinematographic work of art, merely that it's a bad cinematographic work of art. Art without any serious artistic merit to it, so to speak.

 

[hannes2]

Music is a grey zone of me. But for painting and partly music the main focus isn't to entertainment. And no with interactive I mean being able to change things, being able to observe have nothing to do with interactivity.

What I was trying to say is that something you merely observe isn´t capable of being anything more than simple entertainment. The best a painting can do if you just observe it is look pretty. For a painting to be more than entertaining to look at, you need to think about it in some way (whether it´s the composition, the message or whatever), which is a form of interactivity.

 

[Pyro Paul]

If it's interactive it isn't art. If it's made with entertainment in mind it isn't art. Does are two of my definition of what isn't art (something that is a lot easier that what is art) that games can't live up to.

painting is designed from the most basic concept to be 'interactive' with preception, focus, and other concepts, the painter can draw the eye to tell a story.

the first paintings in history, cave paintings, where intended to be visual stories of great hunts. Cavemen would watch in awe as the torches only lit a small portion of the over all painting at any given time. As you went down the wall, the story would unfold and the experience would be shared.

Art is anything designed to share an experience, express an emotion, or show an idea.

the interactive medium of video games can be a much deeper form of art then any one before it save for music as you can express such experience and emotion through the course of a game much more deeply then any painting or picture.

I only consider music a superior art form then video games because we live in a world sufused with sound.

 

[LordXel]

Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we still upset because of what Roger Ebert said. (I mean I love Thor and I couldn't care less for what Ebert thought of it, but I wouldn't hate him for having a different opinion)

Well all I can say is I believe some games are art, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Arkham Asylum, but does it matter if games are art? I don't have anyhing else to say. Please stop beating this dead horse.

 

[Nazulu]

I believe anything that entertains and/or interests people is art. What makes good art is defined by the quality of the product.

 

[Thaius]

Unquestionably. For that matter, all games are art. Art is a matter of creativity and skill; if these things aren't presented well, that doesn't mean a work is not art, it simply means it's bad art. To say "only good works are actually art" is to essentially deny the existence of bad art. All creative works within an artistic medium are art; the E.T. game is no less art than Shadow of the Colossus, the former just isn't good.

And you know what, I've never seen an argument against games as art that stands to scrutiny. Ever. Not a single one in the history of ever. The only one that comes close is the idea that the very definition of "art" is subjective, which in my mind is just bad art theory inspired by a similarly bad philosophy (post-modernism), and that's only because you can't refute something that claims to hold no truth value and yet simultaneously be true. So feel free to challenge me on that; I love a good debate.

EDIT: Also, stop saying this is not an important topic. This topic almost cost us dearly in the supreme court just recently; have we already forgotten that? Whether games are art is an incredibly important thing that we must discuss, not only so society will see value in it like in the supreme court case, but so we can continue to develop the art theory behind this incredible interactive medium. This issue is absolutely an important one, and to say otherwise displays a blatant disregard for both the good of the medium and the importance of art in society and culture.

 

[Moromillas]

Entirely subjective, I am not surprised at the polling results.

Just as no two books are the same, it might be better to pick a game and discuss weather it has merit to be considered art or not.

I would say that the 3d modeling and texturing alone would be its own art-form, so, yes.