Oh, not you in particular. It's just that this kind of thread ends up becoming about "but what is art?" very quickly.verdant monkai said:
Poll: Do You Really want Games to be art?
- Thread starter verdant monkai
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I want them to be legally considered art so that they may enjoy the protections of art. Whether companies choose to make an artistic game is up to them.
Personally, i don't give a fuck. I see them as artistic creations, and that's good enough for me.
However, I am LOVING this. For years, the gaming community has been clamoring and going "Take games seriously! Games are art!". And now that one of the negative aspects of games being considered an art form has reared its head, the community has collectively gone "We take it back! We don't want games to be taken seriously! We were just kidding!"
However, I am LOVING this. For years, the gaming community has been clamoring and going "Take games seriously! Games are art!". And now that one of the negative aspects of games being considered an art form has reared its head, the community has collectively gone "We take it back! We don't want games to be taken seriously! We were just kidding!"
Well, since you would be able to get grants, people taking it more seriously if it's official, and since, like most things, has the potential to be, but sometimes isn't, I think it should be classified as such.
We can have artistic wargames, or 10 minute, abstract ones that work best if you're on LSD, and it wouldn't matter much to me. It should just be given the opportunity, and we should stop being childish about it. Sure, childish games can exist, but they shouldn't represent us in any way.
The game industry's full of artists, and they should be able to explore their full potential. But then we'd need more public support, and classifying games as art is a good way to make it seem as credible as it actually is.
We can have artistic wargames, or 10 minute, abstract ones that work best if you're on LSD, and it wouldn't matter much to me. It should just be given the opportunity, and we should stop being childish about it. Sure, childish games can exist, but they shouldn't represent us in any way.
The game industry's full of artists, and they should be able to explore their full potential. But then we'd need more public support, and classifying games as art is a good way to make it seem as credible as it actually is.
**sigh**
Games are already art. To create a game, you need many, many digital artists to create the characters, scenery, levels, music, writing, etc.
Imagining something and then creating a picture of it IS the work of an artist.
Writing scripts and music is the work of artists.
Sculpting three dimensional moving sculptures of the characters is the work of an artist.
"Painting" the beautiful skyboxes that make the world seem real is the work of an artist.
For a medium that combines the skills of sculpting, film, writing, and musical composition - four major realms of artistic expression - how can games not be viewed as art?
Then again, there's good art and bad art. A lot of time, when people say "art" they are only thinking of good art, not all art.
Garfield comics are art - someone drew them and wrote dialogue. It might be a crappy drawing and a sucky script, but it is still art - bad art. (or good, as Garfield has good days and bad days).
A crappy novel is still art, even though it's crappy.
A bad painting is still art, even though it's bad.
A fricken macaroni sculpture made by a kindergartener is technically art.
Amateur porn is art.
Pixar movies are art (good art typically - I bring them up because they're created by the same type of 3D programmers and animators who create video games).
Oh, and as far as the "games are interactive so they aren't art" argument... so are fucking novels. When you read a novel, you, the reader, have to contribute mental images of the characters and the locations. The author can aid you with good description, but that description can only do so much - eventually the process becomes interactive between the book and the reader.
Hell, much of recent post-modern art (ie art installations) are interactive in some way. Making art an interactive process is THE recent trend in the art community. So not only is the interactivity =/= not art argument stupid, it is blatantly not true.
Here's the trick - art is made by artists. Sculpture is made by sculptors. Music is written by composers. Etc.
Games are written by writers, sculpted by 3D artists, brought to life by animators, set in a world created by other digital artists, and provided with a score composed by composers.
Games aren't just art - they're one of the greatest artistic forms known to man. No other form of art combines so many different artistic disciplines into one art form.
tl;dr: Games are not only indisputably art, they are in fact the most complex art known to man.
... other than Pixar films.
Games are already art. To create a game, you need many, many digital artists to create the characters, scenery, levels, music, writing, etc.
Imagining something and then creating a picture of it IS the work of an artist.
Writing scripts and music is the work of artists.
Sculpting three dimensional moving sculptures of the characters is the work of an artist.
"Painting" the beautiful skyboxes that make the world seem real is the work of an artist.
For a medium that combines the skills of sculpting, film, writing, and musical composition - four major realms of artistic expression - how can games not be viewed as art?
Then again, there's good art and bad art. A lot of time, when people say "art" they are only thinking of good art, not all art.
Garfield comics are art - someone drew them and wrote dialogue. It might be a crappy drawing and a sucky script, but it is still art - bad art. (or good, as Garfield has good days and bad days).
A crappy novel is still art, even though it's crappy.
A bad painting is still art, even though it's bad.
A fricken macaroni sculpture made by a kindergartener is technically art.
Amateur porn is art.
Pixar movies are art (good art typically - I bring them up because they're created by the same type of 3D programmers and animators who create video games).
Oh, and as far as the "games are interactive so they aren't art" argument... so are fucking novels. When you read a novel, you, the reader, have to contribute mental images of the characters and the locations. The author can aid you with good description, but that description can only do so much - eventually the process becomes interactive between the book and the reader.
Hell, much of recent post-modern art (ie art installations) are interactive in some way. Making art an interactive process is THE recent trend in the art community. So not only is the interactivity =/= not art argument stupid, it is blatantly not true.
Here's the trick - art is made by artists. Sculpture is made by sculptors. Music is written by composers. Etc.
Games are written by writers, sculpted by 3D artists, brought to life by animators, set in a world created by other digital artists, and provided with a score composed by composers.
Games aren't just art - they're one of the greatest artistic forms known to man. No other form of art combines so many different artistic disciplines into one art form.
tl;dr: Games are not only indisputably art, they are in fact the most complex art known to man.
... other than Pixar films.
Sorry, I was under the impression that video games were already considered art. My bad.
If you ask me, claiming "artistic integrity" isn't going to hurt the industry, since that logic does not defend a game from sales figures. If you draw a stick figure and try to sell it, you can claim "artistic integrity" all you want, it won't cause people to suddenly decide that they need to buy it.
If you ask me, claiming "artistic integrity" isn't going to hurt the industry, since that logic does not defend a game from sales figures. If you draw a stick figure and try to sell it, you can claim "artistic integrity" all you want, it won't cause people to suddenly decide that they need to buy it.
Why?
There is already so much elitism and hipsters in gaming. It's as much art as graffiti. Some people think it's art, the majority thinks they are ugly because they never seen a good graffiti. It's a good way to exist.
There is already so much elitism and hipsters in gaming. It's as much art as graffiti. Some people think it's art, the majority thinks they are ugly because they never seen a good graffiti. It's a good way to exist.
Then I suppose music is not art, because it gets censored all the time for radio stations and YouTube videos (damn you, VEVO!!!)ChupathingyX said:
Well, since they're protected under the 1st Amendment in the US, the semantics arguments don't really matter to me much.
Developers will create their works for reasons of their own; whether that be to send a message to their audience, entertain themselves and/or others, or just flat out exploit it for money (or doing a combination of these).
In that sense, it really doesn't matter if they're considered art or not...though I do tire of people creating bullshit "definitions" for art that have no logical basis (Roger Ebert, I'm looking at you).
Developers will create their works for reasons of their own; whether that be to send a message to their audience, entertain themselves and/or others, or just flat out exploit it for money (or doing a combination of these).
In that sense, it really doesn't matter if they're considered art or not...though I do tire of people creating bullshit "definitions" for art that have no logical basis (Roger Ebert, I'm looking at you).
The problem with your "wart" analogy, is that you weren't commissioning Bioware. Bioware made a product on their own accord, not because you asked them to. You just happened to be paying for something that they've created.
In any case (that had nothing to do with art), Video games are art because all entertainment is art.
Whoopedy-doo.
In any case (that had nothing to do with art), Video games are art because all entertainment is art.
Whoopedy-doo.
My thoughts exactly.TheCaptain said:
"Art" is starting to become a synonym to "terrible but can't be criticized".
It's especially annoying when everything a company does is business, but when their brainfart of an idea gets attacked by angry playerbase, it's "artistic".
Same reason I hate "postmodern" or other bullshit. You can't draw well. I get it. Don't defend yourself that it's "artistic" or "hard to understand". It's just bad. And morons who think "bad and confusing = artistic and incredibly talented!" all join the fun and allow the shitty ideas to flourish.
The games as art argument has always been about validation from other people.
Its not about whether it will change anything in the gaming community to have games in the Louvre, but its an excuse for us gamers to say to our elders and other people "see... This is not just some way to spend our time; this is important now. It talks about our human condition." And then, we will hope for our Watchmen of the medium, using it as a single defense for a medium that largely prefers space marines and shooting in the face than some introspection.
The truth is, games are already there. There are several examples, way beyond the usual grey shooter against nazi/aliens/zombies/terrorists. I know where the medium stands in the world, and I don't need someone like Ebert to admit he is wrong.
Now we shift our target? Now EA is not the evil for its politics, but Bioware for his inability to live up to our expectations? Now its not about consumers against companies doing businesses, its about consumers against writers writing, against designers designing and against creators creating?
Sorry, but I will not support that approach. One of the first things you learn in real life working for clients is that the maxim of "Client is always right" is FALSE.
Its not about whether it will change anything in the gaming community to have games in the Louvre, but its an excuse for us gamers to say to our elders and other people "see... This is not just some way to spend our time; this is important now. It talks about our human condition." And then, we will hope for our Watchmen of the medium, using it as a single defense for a medium that largely prefers space marines and shooting in the face than some introspection.
The truth is, games are already there. There are several examples, way beyond the usual grey shooter against nazi/aliens/zombies/terrorists. I know where the medium stands in the world, and I don't need someone like Ebert to admit he is wrong.
Under that definition, games are already art. Congratulations.verdant monkai said:
I have seen some argument against or in favor of "games as art", but yours has to be one of the most asinine arguments against it. So now artistic merit, vision or licensing are bad things, because those attempt against your need to have a saying in it that has more weight that the creator?verdant monkai said:
Now we shift our target? Now EA is not the evil for its politics, but Bioware for his inability to live up to our expectations? Now its not about consumers against companies doing businesses, its about consumers against writers writing, against designers designing and against creators creating?
Sorry, but I will not support that approach. One of the first things you learn in real life working for clients is that the maxim of "Client is always right" is FALSE.
I would like it, if it would be acknowledged that games can be art. Of course, not every game should be considered as art.
But right now games that touch sensitive themes are immediately criticized just because they are games (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_In_Fallujah ). If games are seen as art, this could change.
I don't like it that bioware wants to defend the artistic vision (and I won't hesitate to tell anyone my opinion on the ending if asked), but I respect that they stick to their vision.
But right now games that touch sensitive themes are immediately criticized just because they are games (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_In_Fallujah ). If games are seen as art, this could change.
If you compare this with the ME3 ending, the fans are those who come to an artist and harass him because of his work since the game wasn't commissioned by the fans.verdant monkai said:
I don't like it that bioware wants to defend the artistic vision (and I won't hesitate to tell anyone my opinion on the ending if asked), but I respect that they stick to their vision.
I would like games to be something the developer can be proud of, not for its profitability, but for it actually encompassing the vision of the person who put their hand up during the 'hey what should we make today?' meeting. To be honest I have had an issue with the way my identity as a gamer has grown since they stopped renting games at grocery stores.
Box Art. Box Art used to be nearly everything when it came to renting/buying, maybe a lil read on the back of the box, but boxart really used to sell this stuff. Before the internet was a major thing, people (kids like me) didn't go onto gamestop.com The Escapist Metacritic or G4 to find out what was great. The closest we got to that was gaming magazines, still around but I don't see them as popular as the ever-flowing internet. Same can be said for most movies these days, but netflix still doesn't give a good look at boxart.
The last time I genuinly bought a game because of box art was a couple years ago when I wanted to try a random horror game, and ended up getting Obscure: The Aftermath (PS2). I can whole-heartedly tell you that the game was tough, had terrible voice acting/reactions, and I probably should have played the first one, BUT! I enjoyed the experience because of how awesomely bad it was. I had many a laugh with my fellows about my experience.
To sum it all up, you can make a game to 'sell' you can make a game to be an 'artform' you can even make a game to 'satisfy' your customer, but if you can do all three then you might just be 'proud of it.'\
Sorry for the rant, just have been thinking about this for a while.
Box Art. Box Art used to be nearly everything when it came to renting/buying, maybe a lil read on the back of the box, but boxart really used to sell this stuff. Before the internet was a major thing, people (kids like me) didn't go onto gamestop.com The Escapist Metacritic or G4 to find out what was great. The closest we got to that was gaming magazines, still around but I don't see them as popular as the ever-flowing internet. Same can be said for most movies these days, but netflix still doesn't give a good look at boxart.
The last time I genuinly bought a game because of box art was a couple years ago when I wanted to try a random horror game, and ended up getting Obscure: The Aftermath (PS2). I can whole-heartedly tell you that the game was tough, had terrible voice acting/reactions, and I probably should have played the first one, BUT! I enjoyed the experience because of how awesomely bad it was. I had many a laugh with my fellows about my experience.
To sum it all up, you can make a game to 'sell' you can make a game to be an 'artform' you can even make a game to 'satisfy' your customer, but if you can do all three then you might just be 'proud of it.'\
Sorry for the rant, just have been thinking about this for a while.