Poll: Games - Art or not?

[Bobic]

Games are absolutely art. The annoying thing to me is the "only a few games are art" idea. Guys, the medium of video games is a form of artistic expression. To say, "only the really good and artistic games are art" is essentially saying that there is no such thing as bad art. Video games require creativity and skill to complete, and thus they are all art, even if not all of them are good art.

But would you count games with no artistic merit as art? Is space invaders a piece of art? If so, why doesn't screwball scramble count as art?

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

All games are art, its just that only a few are particularly good art.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

I think that as a storytelling medium, it's churned out some pretty amazing stuff. Silent Hill is especially worthy of mention (especially shattered memories). I think that when developers focus solely how to convey narrative through atmosphere, then we'd see some other cool stuff too.

 

[the rabidrabit]

Just like films, books, paintings, sculptures etc. are art, so too are games. They tell the story the designers want to tell in a unique medium that involves the player to a degree other media just can't.

Having said that, not all games are GOOD and certainly not all of them add to the medium or the human experience. Much the same as any art form, it will have it's Citizen Kane and it's David but they will float on a sea of mediocre crap.

But hopefully games will never become purely thought provoking or high brow cos I do love me some Duke Nukem and DOA: Beach Vollyball!

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

It's simple:

If literature can still be considered art despite pumping out shlock like Mills and Boon or Twilight

If film can still be considered art despite every summer blockbuster consisting of generically handsome white American men shooting anyone with aridiculous accent or more melanin than them

If music can still be considered art despite Lady Gaga's continued existence

If any of the above can hold true, then videogaming must also be art. Because as Tycho Brahe put it so well 'if a hundred artists create art for five years, how can the end result not be called art?'

I know I just posted my own opinion, but once again the guy with the awesome avatar says something I agree with and think is very important. I'm tired of people considering all those other mediums art despite the crap, then saying video games only have a few actual artworks. So, quoted for truth. Way to go.

What is it about Basil the Great Mouse Detective that makes everyone love me?

And may I say fine sir that your avatar is just as awesome. 'A giant mushroom! MAYBE IT'S FRIENDLY!'

I guess to actually make a point based off yours though, the difference is merely time. Films weren't considered art back in the day, they were just thought of as flickery lights on walls to distract the maases. Everyone forgets that back in the day, films like Citizen Kane, now often referred to as the greatest film of all time, were booed at the Academy Awards whenever it was called out. Seventy years later and film is now an accepted medium for artwork.

Give gaming another fifty odd years and we'll be right up there, and there will be a dedicated base of elitist future game critics who hold every single game up against Mass Effect or Halo because they think that old games are better than new innovation. And they'll be just as wrong as elitist film critics are about Citizen Kane.

 

[DEAD34345]

Every game ever created is art, it just isn't all good art. In fact almost everything people have created can be considered art in one form or another, just because video games can be fun, or have no deep meaning, doesn't mean they are not art.

To prove my point one of my favourite paintings is this one I saw in the Liverpool museum (I think... it was a while ago so it might have been somewhere else). It was in the same room as a bunch of other "modern art" paintings that professed to be contemporary looks on life, and other such junk.

Spoiler

The title of the painting? "Shit Picnic". I liked it because it made me laugh in a room full of pretentious crap. It doesn't show great technical skill, it doesn't have any kind of deep meaning, but it is definitely art.

 

[lacktheknack]

If it was intended to be art, and doesn't run on shock value alone, it's art.

 

[Thaius]

Games are absolutely art. The annoying thing to me is the "only a few games are art" idea. Guys, the medium of video games is a form of artistic expression. To say, "only the really good and artistic games are art" is essentially saying that there is no such thing as bad art. Video games require creativity and skill to complete, and thus they are all art, even if not all of them are good art.

But would you count games with no artistic merit as art? Is space invaders a piece of art? If so, why doesn't screwball scramble count as art?

Perhaps not. Maybe the early examples of a medium, before it even realizes it can create art, do not count as art. But video games are hardly alone in that. You've likely heard of the film The Great Train Robbery. Know why it's remembered like it is? Because it was the first movie with a story. Before it, people would just lay down a dollar or two to watch a horse run for a few minutes. Film was a spectacle, a tech demo, an artless diversion. For that matter, I highly doubt the first thing done with written language was writing an epic poem. All art forms, in the history of existence, were used for non-artistic purposes before the artistic merit was realized. That makes it a little difficult to classify those early examples as art, perhaps, but it does not mean the medium is not an art form.

For that matter, unless you are going to count things like instructional math videos that just show a hand writing on a whiteboard as art, or a Terms of Service document, every art form has non-artistic uses. It still does not change the fact that the medium is capable of artistic merit, and will be considered an "art form" even if it can also be used for other purposes.

 

[katsumoto03]

When people look at a video game and say, "yes, this is art", the parts that make it "art" are usually the parts that aren't exclusive to video games. (I.e. the story, the cinematics, ect.)

In my opinion, the only way a game could be art is if we judged it by the merits of it's gameplay, nothing else. Otherwise the stories could work better as a film, animated or otherwise.

 

[Dark Harbinger]

Games are an art form. They aren't widely accepted as that at the moment, but then again movies weren't either back in the day.
I'm pretty sure Moviebob did a Game Overthinker on this.

I apologise then if I'm spewing out the same old stuff. I do try to post something more than Vs threads.

I'm not criticising you for it, I'm just pointing out that Moviebob has done something insteresting that we could bring in to this debate

Ah, all the better!

I take issue with the whole "film-like experience thing". It's a new medium. Not like films. A different art form.

Just to be Devil's Advocate. May I put forward games like Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire?

Hmmm......perhaps an intermediary form between the two? I dunno.....

Haha, sorry if I put you on a tightrope there, I suggested those because I personally believe they are the closest games to actual films, but I'm sure they can be called intermediary.

Mmmmm....but having said that, we need to be sure we're making games. We can't beat the film industry at their own game (if you'll excuse the terminology)

No that's quite alright, do you believe then that games are extending too far into film territory?

 

[Thaius]

It's simple:

If literature can still be considered art despite pumping out shlock like Mills and Boon or Twilight

If film can still be considered art despite every summer blockbuster consisting of generically handsome white American men shooting anyone with aridiculous accent or more melanin than them

If music can still be considered art despite Lady Gaga's continued existence

If any of the above can hold true, then videogaming must also be art. Because as Tycho Brahe put it so well 'if a hundred artists create art for five years, how can the end result not be called art?'

I know I just posted my own opinion, but once again the guy with the awesome avatar says something I agree with and think is very important. I'm tired of people considering all those other mediums art despite the crap, then saying video games only have a few actual artworks. So, quoted for truth. Way to go.

What is it about Basil the Great Mouse Detective that makes everyone love me?

And may I say fine sir that your avatar is just as awesome. 'A giant mushroom! MAYBE IT'S FRIENDLY!'

I guess to actually make a point based off yours though, the difference is merely time. Films weren't considered art back in the day, they were just thought of as flickery lights on walls to distract the maases. Everyone forgets that back in the day, films like Citizen Kane, now often referred to as the greatest film of all time, were booed at the Academy Awards whenever it was called out. Seventy years later and film is now an accepted medium for artwork.

Give gaming another fifty odd years and we'll be right up there, and there will be a dedicated base of elitist future game critics who hold every single game up against Mass Effect or Halo because they think that old games are better than new innovation. And they'll be just as wrong as elitist film critics are about Citizen Kane.

Wow, an avatar from an awesome, underrated movie (which, by the way, is probably why it inspires immediate love; that film doesn't get enough respect) and saying exactly what I was thinking. You, my good sir, are awesome. And an Avatar fan to boot. Even recognizing that Citizen Kane just really isn't that great, despite its admittedly impressive cinematography and important influence on the industry (importance and influence does not equal quality in the face of later improvement of the formula). Continue being awesome, my friend.

 

[Radman]

I honestly had to register to this site in order to express my own opinion on this matter.
Most people that view games as art never question what makes actually makes them art!


Sound, visuals and stories can be done in other mediums, but this doesn't make games art.

Games have something that no other medium has: interactivity and that is what truly makes games stand out from other forms of "art".

People always say that games are art, but never really give good explanations WHY.
That is one of the main problems in us players in general.

If I had to say one game which was art, it wouldn't be Shadow Of The Colossus, nor Metal Gear series.

Such small indie titles as "Judith" can be view as an art. It's not the visuals, sounds or the story that makes the experience come true: it's player interactivity.

 

[Thaius]

When people look at a video game and say, "yes, this is art", the parts that make it "art" are usually the parts that aren't exclusive to video games. (I.e. the story, the cinematics, ect.)

In my opinion, the only way a game could be art is if we judged it by the merits of it's gameplay, nothing else. Otherwise the stories could work better as a film, animated or otherwise.

So why don't we judge anything else like that? Why don't judge movies based solely on their cinematography and editing? Why don't we base literature based on the pretty calligraphy? Why don't we judge animation only by how wacky and crazy the pictures are? Judging an art form only by its specific and unique capabilities leads to immense problems. We need to judge artworks, including games, based on the whole. And requiring an artwork to really focus on its single unique ability to be considered art, or even good art, simply isn't good art theory.