Poll: Can games be art?

[Jezzascmezza]

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing;
no-one can play that game and deny that it is a true art-form.

 

[thatonekid]

Yes, haven't you ever seen the Elder Scrolls?

 

[DarthFennec]

Not this topic again ... Okay. Games can be art just like any other medium. It's just the perspective you see it from. I could splatter paintballs all over a brick wall and call it art. Similarly, I can write a version of CubeRunner that's rendered in MagicEye and it would be considered art as well. Actually I'm pretty sure both have been done ...

 

[RetroViruses]

Games and films are the two things which can still be considered art.
Games are still increasing in quality, getting deeper narratives and more powerful directions, especially in indie games, that it can be considered art, and will continue to become more art-like. Films, although there are a lot of bad ones, are art because of the few good ones every year, with great characterization and storylines (hint: half of them are made by Pixar). Books have just been decreasing in quality lately (Twilight), and any media where Justin Bieber is considered to be talented is instantly dead.

 

[Burningsok]

I don't think games are art, and I hope the idea doesn't catch on.
Then game developers will focus too much on the art and not the game.
And then games will suck.

As I've said in the rest of these threads.

I think you and alot of people are missing the point. Art isn't just what you see in museums. When alot of people think of art, they think of Leonardo Da vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso, Vincent Van gogh. People start trying to compare the works of these great artists to video games and that just can't be done. Art isn't just visual, it can be in the form of sound, be felt, hell it can even be tasted. Art provokes an emotional response of any kind even the slightest and most common feelings. And for PimpPeter2, yeah actually you could walk around calling yourself an artist, it just wouldn't fit with what we view an artist should be. We should be calling them professional artists because they can take everyday common art and add more effect to it, bringing out more emotion from the "consumer" I guess you could say as they are taking in piece of work and viewing it in their mind. But in all honest art is one of the very few things that has been defined heavily more by our own opinions rather then by some definition. Look at whats in the games. all sorts of visual effects that can be put on paper and labeled as art. Here you go, think of it this way. Games always start out on a piece of paper; drawings and written ideas. So your telling me that once you put these ideas, these works of art, into animation then they loose all credibility in being art.

 

[AdamRBi]

I'm an Artist. I make Games. Therefor, Games are Art.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The are narratives, capable of creating emotional attachment and conveying a distinct point of view. I'll leave it up to every man to decide whether they are art for themselves, but I will weigh in that I certainly think they're more of an art form than dance is (not counting dance incorporated into theater or other narratives). I personally consider them art, but whether something is art of not is up to every person's own conceited, pretentious opinion. As an American, I firmly believe that every man is entitled to act using his own pretentious conceit however he chooses.

edit-

As someone else mentioned- The Elder Scrolls.

More specifically- Morrowind.

I don't know how its possible to judge the narrative behind its main quest as not being artistic. I suppose it is possible, if your particular brand of pretentiousness sways you heavily to one media (and your last name is Ebert), but you'd be hard pressed to argue the position.

 

[PixieFace]

Whatever.

I'm sick of the whole argument and I wish it would stop. I don't see how ANY of this matters or why anyone even cares. There will never be a definite answer to the question because there is no true definition of art.

For instance, I don't think a man getting paid millions of pounds for kicking a fucking can across London is art (yes, that really happened), but apparently some people think that is the height of human creativity. This is all subjective, which is a prettier way of saying it means nothing. I reiterate: Who cares? And why?

That doesn't mean I don't think games can't be meaningful, don't get me wrong. The ending to The Longest Journey touched me deeply and made me feel something profound. There is a certain sad beauty to how Rapture's insecure society fell. There was a classic hero's journey in Knights of the Old Republic that left each of the characters with a spiritual change.

Games have the potential to be stunning. So do films. So do paintings. So does literature. How these things make you feel is what's important, not some arbitrary word assigned to them like "art", which - again - essentially means nothing.

And, yes, this is coming from an art major. So suck on that.

 

[Pimppeter2]

No game has ever been (in my opinion) of that quality.

Precisely, it's your opinion. So lets stop bickering about it before it gets out of hand.

No shit its my opinion, I never expressed it as anything else.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

This about sums up my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyXtzLNxoI

 

[Iron Mal]

I think what makes these other forms considered art is their sacrifice of focusing exclusively on entertainment and trying to be intellectual and present a message that affects the audience.

So is this to say that art cannot be entertaining or pleasing to look upon?

Some movies like Citizen Kane are considered art and many books like The Red Badge of Courage are as well. What makes games different? I think what games need to do is sacrifice the entertainment focus on fun for a focus on a deep message. Should this ever be done or are games best off staying as pure entertainment?

Removing the focus from fun and entertainment is normally a deathblow to most games, after all, if it isn't even remotely fun to play and is more about conveying a story or message then why couldn't it have been a film insted?

I've been playing Mass Effect 2 and been trying to figure out if it could be considered as art and the main thing I notice is that it seems like there is authorial intent, that the writers are saying paragon is the wiser and "correct" choice while renegade is usually malicious and misguided. The characters all seem to represent different parts of humanity, but the messages they give through their missions seem to be a little simple and straightforward, not saying anything truly deep about humans.

That is your interpritation, I personally found that the paragon and renegade options were different approaches to the same solution (granted, the first game was very idealistic in that the renegade options did feel inappropriate and unessercary sometimes), the Paragon side shows us that sometimes diplomacy and kindness can work while the Renegade side showed us that some people can't be reasoned with and that sometimes the only way to truely help people is to take a 'might makes right' approach, neither side is shown to be truely superior to the other (other than the fact that you will probably feel more 'rightious' if you elect to take the Paragon side). I would say that is quite insightful about our perception of 'right and wrong' (even if he can be somewhat harsh, Renegade Sheperd isn't nessercarily evil or unreasonable, he is still a hero and is still dedicated to saving people, yet some people will still mark his actions as 'wrong').

My conclusion about Mass Effect 2 and many other games, is that it is art, just not sophisticated art. I like to boil games down to separate pieces like graphics, music, story, and gameplay and I want to know could a game be considered art if only one of these was artistic or do all of them have to be artistic? And finally how could gameplay be artistic? Gameplay is an experience so what makes an experience artistic?

Experiences as such don't really have to be artistic, is there anything artistic about climbing Everest or seeing the Earth from space? Probably not, but these are still enriching experiences none-the-less, to say that something isn't as worthy or intellectually inspiring because it cannot be considered art is being narrow minded and shows a lacking of any greater wisdom. Granted, Mass Effect 2 isn't Everest but it was still an enjoyable and enriching experience all the same so I still defend it's worth whether it be 'sophisticated art' or not.

I could picture a game of The Red Badge of Courage that uses graphics, music, and sound to punctuate the protagonists' inner growth from youth to man. It could be some kind of psychedelic thing making him seem small and telling the story through hearing his inner thoughts as voice-over. I'm not saying this would be a good game, I just want to get to the heart of this premise.

The main issue with turning most things like novels or films into games is that they often lack the action or momentum to be an entertaining game, and yes, a game must first attend to being entertaining to play before anything else (as I said previously, if it's horrible to play then you might have been better served by making a film), and when said action is 'added' to them (see Dante's Inferno) you'll have crowds kick up a fuss about how it isn't being 'faithful to the source material'. Just reenacting the events of a book might seem fun and enriching to you but unfortuneately you're going to be part of a very small group who feels the same way.

I think games have the potential to be art since they involve so many things, but they always seem to focus on just being simple fun. I'm sorry if this is a lot to respond to, but any input is appreciated and any arguments for any of these points would be beneficial. I love to be proven wrong because learning arises from failure. Could somebody please elaborate on any games they believe to be art and argue why? (ex. Shadow of the Colossus, never played it, but I hear its great)

I am yet to hear why being 'just simple fun' is actually a bad thing? As I said before, not all experiences need to be artistic or intellectual so the desperate need to justify games as art seems unessercary to me and makes me feel like some people have completely missed the point.

However, if you do want a great 'enriching' game to play then I highly reccomend the original Red Faction, yes, the plot isn't great and it's mostly a straight foward shooter but the opressive and revolutionary atmosphere that is present throughout is unfortgettable (courtousy of propaganda posters, public announcements that sounded somewhat malicious and guards who seem a little too enthusiastic to kill you).

 

[Wayneguard]

if this is art, games can be art.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Can games be art?

I pose another question in response: How could something composed entirely OF art result in anything less?

 

[CloudNineK]

@Iron_Mal Thank you for your views, they really got me to see things from a fresh perspective, and that's exactly why I started this thread. I don't think I meant to really call this an "are games art" thread, but I guess I did, I just had a lot of thoughts I wanted to share on deeper meaning in games, I had no intention of igniting disdain in many people who regularly post in these forums.

I'm not even sure what I wanted from this thread, but your point is much appreciated and I guess for people regularly using forums I'm happy some of them are willing to actually give their opinions again on an "old" topic. To me, news never seems to get old if it gets me thinking.

I've just enjoyed games so much over the years, I had started looking for deeper meaning and value in games, but now I see that even though they can be considered art, why bother when other forms of media might be better at it. Make no mistake, I love Mass Effect 2 and I enjoy art, I just learn in a way that often results in a large number of very opinionated ideas that other people always love to criticize like I'm not using my brain correctly or something.

 

[MasterMongoose0]

I can't help but think of Toy Story's "YOU. ARE. A. TOY!" that applies to most games.
Games are toys for grown-ups. That's a fact.

With that said, games like Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid 3, LittleBigPlanet, and Super Mario Bros. all have something to offer that a movie could never reproduce. Very few games are art in my opinion, but the ones that are, are masterpieces.

 

[Bloodstain]

Wait...........this debate AGAIN? Oh please.

In my humble opinion, some games are art, some aren't. Therefore, they can be art.
Etc etc, .

However, there are good reasons why games aren't art as well, such as .

Sigh. How about we just end this debate and come back to playing games, rather than debating about their status?