Poll: do you think games are an art form

[WayOutThere]

Because it is an archaic word with so many different meanings and subjective parts to it that it is rendered essentially meaningless; no single definition can fully encapsulate it.

A broad definition can encapsulate a plethora of experiences. I just don't understand why this is so hopelessly difficult.

The broader the definition gets, the less meaningful it is.

A definition for something that can include so many so different things should be broad yet specific enough to be meaningful. Such a middle ground does exist.

And art is inherently subjective; after all, one mans urinal is anothers art.

That urinal was definetely a great work of art. I could see myself stealing it .

 

[WayOutThere]

I deny it was art at all.

Well, I was mostly being sarcastic, I mean, in a light-hearted way.

And art does not meet the criteria for your middle ground; it is far too broad these days.

Art is the exploration of emotions. We can find any number of kinds of art but they will always come back to this.

 

[fletch_talon]

Art is creating something man-made/captured with a purpose beyond simply being functional.
For example something which has the task of entertaining, appealing to the senses or invoking emotion is art.

Personally I think that covers just about everything, sometimes art just looks good (appeals to the senses), sometimes it conveys a message (invoking emotions) and more often than not it serves as a distraction or a way to pass the time (entertaining).

Sure its stilled flawed, but I don't think it can be claimed to be incorrect.

 

[Andantil]

It depends on what game. Some are good enough to be considered art, while others are complete garbage. like Dragon Age: Origins compared to Barbie Horse Adventures.

 

[WayOutThere]

Art is the exploration of emotions. We can find any number of kinds of art but they will always come back to this.

But I maintain that games are for entertainment, not exploration of emotions. I think they'd need to b a tad deeper to reach that status.

Well okay, the point I'm interested in making in regards to video games is that they can reach the status of art, not that they have already.

Really?

You can't see me but I have a snear on my face right now.

Your definition has several flaws, I fear.

You say that even though you've pointed out only one "flaw".

Some pieces of art are not emotional nor meant to invoke emotion at all.
They are merely physical structures which appeal to the eye.

Art is definitly not merely about "exploring emotions", it is also quite simply APPEALING to the senses. No emotions needed.

That appealing to the senses is itself emotional.

Dude, its called beauty.

 

[Nova5]

Games are art in the same way that something on a piece of paper can be art. In the right hands, a pencil and paper can generate amazing sketches. In the wrong hands, it can generate XKCD*.

In the same vein, Madden 2010 is not art. The gameplay may be fun (not to me, but apparently some people call it entertainment), but it's still not a creative project (which is fine, still not art). On the other hand, consider any game that you - the person reading this - consider art.

In other words, Games are a medium of art, are not inherently art.

[small]*Before I openly invite all the XKCD fanboys to belch their opinions of the writing, whether or not XKCD is funny is not the point. It's damn ugly, intentional or no.[/small]

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

The title is self-explanetory.

I believe that games are art.

Art can take any form.

Spoiler: if you chose option 4

[H1/]THEN GET OUT OF MY THREAD, HIDEO KOJIMA[/HEADING]

Your spoiler tag kind of kills anything I would have said...

[small]:mumbles: metal uhh gear... uh... solid...[/small]

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

No.

Games have artistic merit and value, but by and large mainstream games are not art.

If art is the expression of ideas, which is meant to be the primary focus of the product, then it is the antithesis of games which is meant to be structured interactive activities which put enjoyment or accessibility at the forefront.

So no, by the traditional sense games in general are not art, but they do hold artistic merit.

 

[SturmDolch]

Huh. I recently blogged [http://seventhcirclegaming.com/2009/12/11/video-games-art/] about this. The guy saying that video games are FLASHING LIGHTS LOL NO ART is completely wrong. You could say the same about film, or that paintings are DYE ON CANVAS LOLL!!

My argument was that video games belong in a few categories, not just one. There are the competitive, skill over mind games such as Call of Duty and Battlefield, and then there are the arty games like Bioshock or Fallout 3 that actually have a point to them besides GO KILL. In Bioshock it's Ayn Rand, in Fallout 3 it's about the devastation of Nuclear Warfare. Or take Portal, which humourously gives us a feeling of being trapped.

There's nothing wrong with the games that aren't artistic. Hell, we need them to balance out the ones that are. In fact, I'd say most games are either not artistic at all or slightly artistic, merely because if they are all the way artistic, they most likely aren't fun to play. Some games manage to balance it. Some games don't. Some games choose not to and go straight for the fun-factor. None of these are wrong, as long as they have an audience willing to play (or experience in some cases) them.

 

[WayOutThere]

Well okay, the point I'm interested in making in regards to video games is that they can reach the status of art, not that they have already.

Well that's different to claiming that games are art. Surely everything has the potential to be art

fine

In other words, Games are a medium of art, are not inherently art.

I doubt any medium is inherently art.

 

[Xanadu84]

They're art. Undeniably art. Unless you try to bend over backwards with your definition because you really wanna deny someone from the club, games are art. If you still wanna be all pissy, argue about whether or not games are GOOD art. That's a different discussion. But they're still art, like it or not.