Poll: Do You Really want Games to be art?

[verdant monkai]

Art is great and can be used to put across complicated thoughts and ideas, but artists have artistic licencing do what ever they want with their art. Now I am not saying that is a bad thing.
Games could be considered a strange kind of art, because they are not like a paintings or mosaics, because they are essentially made to be an entertaining INTERACTIVE experience, which will result in a large profit, although I am aware the first example is generally the more general purpose (for the developer anyway). I understand Games take ages to make and a lot of time, thought and effort goes into them. So they should merit praise and recognition. That is great but......
As I said Artists can do anything with their work even f*ck it up horribly if they want to . Now take Bioware for example (I know I am a bitter ME3 fanboy but I wont rant I promise) Their justification for not changing that ending. Is that they want to defend their teams artistic integrity, wtf seriously? It seems to me like one enjoying the smell of ones own fart (write that down), no one gives a shit about their integrity just them.
Take this scenario for an example
I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

My point is games may be considered art but they are also a consumer item and people have a right to ask for a product they paid for to be altered. Also wouldn't it be so much better if Games were just made to be entertaining, and didn't come with any of the BS associated with art.
In short is it good for GAMERS that games should be considered art? I dont think so I think it is just away of taking yet more power away from us, the consumers who fund the bloody things in the first place.
(this is not another Mass Effect rant I am talking about gaming in general)
(apologies for poor punctuation)
(Oh yes and if you have seen a similar thread before, PLEASE do not hesitate to post a picture of team rocket, saying "oh this thread again". Everyone finds them hilarious, and people will love you for doing it)

So anyway what do you guys think?

 

[Keoul]

I think I am very very confused :S
what is defined as art? from a quick google search I got "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" in which case video games are an art form (albeit interactive).
I don't see what the problem is since technically the artist can do whatever they want with their "artwork" and there shouldn't be a problem, after all, no one forced you to purchase their work.
The Mass Effect fiasco probably isn't the best example to use since although it did suck, people aren't angry about it being terrible(okay maybe a few are >.>), it's more about the "bait and switch" method of advertising they did. A lot of things where promised such as previous choice having an impact on the ending when in reality nothing really mattered.
You have to feel a bit bad for the Mass Effect team though, their lead writer left and it was obvious most of their budget was used for advertising the game rather than actually making it, another victim of EA.
Video games shouldn't be changed just because the public ask for it loud enough, regardless of what happens they made it, games aren't made on a commission basis with you detailing everything you want in the game, boycott the company if you want but people shouldn't be forced to change their creations just because you didn't like it.

Still confused what you're arguing about though Art is a category and games just happen to fall under it, doesn't reeaaaallly change the way we perceive it right?

 

[DoPo]

As I said Artists can do anything with their work even f*ck it up horribly if they want to . Now take Bioware for example (I know I am a bitter ME3 fanboy but I wont rant I promise) Their justification for not changing that ending. Is that they want to defend their teams artistic integrity, wtf seriously? It seems to me like one enjoying the smell of ones own fart (write that down), no one gives a shit about their integrity just them.
Take this scenario for an example
I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

Don't worry, I'll punch myself for having to write this but games can be art without all the "artistic integrity" crap. In fact, your example of a sculpture is not correct. If an artist wants his integrity intact, he wouldn't take guidance (and hence, money) from you. He can fashion all sorts of fingers, toes and whatever other body parts he wishes and will have his artistic integrity. If you pay him for certain expectations, and those expectations are not met (sometimes it could be hard to pin them down but in your example, it's really easy) then he can cite integrity as much as he wishes but it would mean nothing.

Art does not mean "get out of rage free card". If you don't like the art - don't fucking buy it. It's easy, is it not? Or maybe just don't buy stuff from that same person any more. Again - easy. An artist can create works for himself but if they want to sell, then they would have to go with what the public prefers. If an artist creates finger sculptures but everybody else wants to buy toes, then he'll either starve or start making toes.

 

[ChupathingyX]

If it means censorship will back off then yes, I'd like them to be art.

 

[TheCaptain]

No.

While there is merit to both sides, there's too much about what's generally considered "art" that I don't particularly care for.

For once, the term "art" has been badly abused as an excuse for producing shit. "This is a work of art", the artist says, "and if you dislike it, that's because my art goes over your head, you filthy uneducated peasant!"

Further, trying to apply the term to video games often seems to have the purpose to make playing video games more acceptable, especially for adults. "Oh, but it's not just a game and thus a great waste of time. I'm appreciating fine art here!" I sure don't need other people's approval for a pastime that helps me relax and enjoy myself after a long day at work.

Also, art tends to attract people who pretend to like/appreciate/understand it to appear more educated; the game industry latches onto this and caters to that kind of people, we get countless attempts at reinventing the wheel and sticking features to games that might make them more "artistical" but less enjoyable. To be completely honest, I'm completely fine with games sticking stuff that's been seen to work in the past. Take ole Mass Effect here, they made an incredibly cliche space opera for 2.99 games and tried to be clever for .01 part of the third one. And that was not good.

That, of course I appreciate the creativity that goes into making a good video game, but I don't really care for the art label being slapped onto my fun hobby. It's the same with a good fantasy novel. I'd rather have something I can say about "Well, that was a mighty fine and entertaining tale you told there!" rather than "Now, what you did there.... with the words, you know... very unusual, but got me thinking about life a lot..."

 

[verdant monkai]

As I said Artists can do anything with their work even f*ck it up horribly if they want to . Now take Bioware for example (I know I am a bitter ME3 fanboy but I wont rant I promise) Their justification for not changing that ending. Is that they want to defend their teams artistic integrity, wtf seriously? It seems to me like one enjoying the smell of ones own fart (write that down), no one gives a shit about their integrity just them.
Take this scenario for an example
I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

Don't worry, I'll punch myself for having to write this but games can be art without all the "artistic integrity" crap. In fact, your example of a sculpture is not correct. If an artist wants his integrity intact, he wouldn't take guidance (and hence, money) from you. He can fashion all sorts of fingers, toes and whatever other body parts he wishes and will have his artistic integrity. If you pay him for certain expectations, and those expectations are not met (sometimes it could be hard to pin them down but in your example, it's really easy) then he can cite integrity as much as he wishes but it would mean nothing.

Art does not mean "get out of rage free card". If you don't like the art - don't fucking buy it. It's easy, is it not? Or maybe just don't buy stuff from that same person any more. Again - easy. An artist can create works for himself but if they want to sell, then they would have to go with what the public prefers. If an artist creates finger sculptures but everybody else wants to buy toes, then he'll either starve or start making toes.

You saying my artistic example is incorrect has saddened me and I feel obliged to defend it even though it was bad (joke). No I think my argument was correct if I hire someone to make me something specific and I dont like the result I can ask for it to be altered right?

 

[verdant monkai]

I think I am very very confused :S
what is defined as art? from a quick google search I got "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" in which case video games are an art form (albeit interactive).
I don't see what the problem is since technically the artist can do whatever they want with their "artwork" and there shouldn't be a problem, after all, no one forced you to purchase their work.
The Mass Effect fiasco probably isn't the best example to use since although it did suck, people aren't angry about it being terrible(okay maybe a few are >.>), it's more about the "bait and switch" method of advertising they did. A lot of things where promised such as previous choice having an impact on the ending when in reality nothing really mattered.
You have to feel a bit bad for the Mass Effect team though, their lead writer left and it was obvious most of their budget was used for advertising the game rather than actually making it, another victim of EA.
Video games shouldn't be changed just because the public ask for it loud enough, regardless of what happens they made it, games aren't made on a commission basis with you detailing everything you want in the game, boycott the company if you want but people shouldn't be forced to change their creations just because you didn't like it.

Still confused what you're arguing about though Art is a category and games just happen to fall under it, doesn't reeaaaallly change the way we perceive it right?

My point is games are a consumer item, and rules that go with consumer items, tend to clash with those that apply to "art".

 

[DoPo]

You saying my artistic example is incorrect has saddened me and I feel obliged to defend it even though it was bad (joke). No I think my argument was correct if I hire someone to make me something specific and I dont like the result I can ask for it to be altered right?

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Yes, you are totally right to ask for a change. There is no artistic integrity to defend there. It's meaningless to talk about integrity when he has purposely sold out already.

The artist will have artistic integrity if he has just made a sculpture of a finger with a wart. Even then, you can ask for the wart to be removed or another sculpture to be made without one and you would buy it.

Compare - you making a sandwich for yourself - you have all the creative integrity in the world. You can put jam cheese and onions if you wish. But if somebody asked you to make him a PBJ sandwich, you cannot put onions and defend it as "your personal taste". This is why I said the example was wrong - there is no integrity to speak of.

 

[Rawne1980]

As a gamer of around 30 years this is one of those subjects I really can't bring myself to care about.

For me, I buy a game to play and entertain myself. I care very little about what anyone else thinks of my pass time or if it is "art".

As long as i'm having fun they can call it whatever the feth they like it changes nothing for me.

Someone once said to me "but people would stop looking down on you as a gamer if they were art" to which I can only reply .... i'm in my 30's. I stopped giving a toss about what people thought about me oooooh around 30 years ago.

 

[Fishyash]

I don't think it should be a deliberate effort to 'make games art'.

All it takes is time. More and more people are accepting video games. Honestly I have always considered them art. It just seems as obvious to me as the sky being blue on a clear day. Anybody who says otherwise is adding some arbitrary definition to what art is.

Video games are art. Always have been, always will be.

Since it's been brought up already, I might as well add what I think of the mass effect ending.

Changing it doesn't effect "artistic integrity" (the notion of 'artistic integrity' is bullshit) IMO. Changing on the whims of the fans is up to BioWare anyways. The fans wouldn't have changed it, BioWare would have. I think the ending is outright broken, and I don't believe the extended cut will fix it, but I am not really too bothered either way if BioWare wants to change it or not. They are not obligated to do either, and neither of the decisions would effect how 'artistic' video games are. All I care about is if BioWare is pleased with the decision.

 

[TheCaptain]

All I care about is if BioWare is pleased with the decision.

Really? 'cause it'd also be fine with me if I was pleased with the decision and they'd be disgruntled. 'd probably teach them not to drop the ball like that again ;-)

 

[Zhukov]

Your post is a mess.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. "Art" is a nebulous term at the best of times. Slapping it on games, correctly or not, won't change anything.

 

[Keoul]

games aren't made on a commission basis with you detailing everything you want in the game, boycott the company if you want but people shouldn't be forced to change their creations just because you didn't like it

My point is games are a consumer item, and rules that go with consumer items, tend to clash with those that apply to "art".

I feel like you didn't read my entire post =.= I don't blame you, it was pretty long. Regardless just because you're a consumer doesn't mean you should have absolute power over the company and the direction of each and every one of their projects.

No I think my argument was correct if I hire someone to make me something specific and I dont like the result I can ask for it to be altered right?

That's true, if you DID hire the entire bioware team who made Mass Effect 3 then yes you can ask them to change it, the problem is that you didn't. You just bought the final product, as is. No reason to get angry about it, just business.

 

[verdant monkai]

Your post is a mess.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. "Art" is a nebulous term at the best of times. Slapping it on games, correctly or not, won't change anything.

I did apologise for my punctuation but the question at the top of the thread is pretty self explanatory no?

 

[verdant monkai]

That's true, if you DID hire the entire bioware team who made Mass Effect 3 then yes you can ask them to change it, the problem is that you didn't. You just bought the final product, as is. No reason to get angry about it, just business.

I'm not angry I never have been angry about it, but it is my view if I pay good money for something, I have the right to at least ASK (not demand) for an improvement.

 

[Kahunaburger]

A games as art thread? SEMANTICS FOR THE SEMANTICS GOD! PRETENSION FOR THE PRETENSION THRONE!

...ahem.

...but anyway, I think this is less a function of whether society decides games are "art" and more a function of whether the definition for "art" covers games. Most do.

 

[distortedreality]

Thread creation is an art, i'm 100% sure about that.

Just a shame so many people suck at it.

 

[verdant monkai]

A games as art thread? SEMANTICS FOR THE SEMANTICS GOD! PRETENSION FOR THE PRETENSION THRONE!

...ahem.

...but anyway, I think this is less a function of whether society decides games are "art" and more a function of whether the definition for "art" covers games. Most do.

Nice 40k reference
I may be misunderstanding you, but if you are implying that I am being pretentious, I am not trying to be. I am genuinely interested to see if people want games to be art, because I dont understand how games or gamers would benefit, from that.