Poll: Games - Art or not?

[Dark Harbinger]

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.

I'm glad you did, welcome to the escapist my friend.

 

[iDoom46]

LASERS! PEW PEW PEW!!


Honestly, I judge whether or not a game is art on a case-by-case basis, most of the time.
But if you have concept artists, character modeling artists, background artists, writers, actors, and musicians ALL working together on something for years, then...
To quote Penny Arcade: "If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?"

 

[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.

Neehhhh.....I would say the COMBINED thing is most important. 'Cause that's what makes the game. Not just gameplay y'know.

Oh definitely. I mean for video games to be regarded (in my personal opinion) as its own art form, this is kind of what I think it should have to do.

 

[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?

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.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

 

[Owlslayer]

Well, as the first poster said, some are art, some toys. But i mostly play games for entertainment, not art-ish needs. Sure, a Braid once in a while is nice, but i hope to god that the casual and normal stuff doesn't try to go with the flow and become artistic.

 

[Dark Harbinger]

TBH, on this site, who isn't going to look at games with some degree of fairness instead of the "Fox News approach" of WAAAH WAAH IT'S A FLIM WHERE YOU CAN PRESS BUTTONS IT'S EVIL AND SHOULD BE BANNED WAAAH! Glad we've got this, though.

Good point. But then again there could be escapists who do watch Fox News, though I doubt it would be a significant number

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

As with movies and books, it really depends on the example. Some games (Shadow of the Colossus and so on) can be considered art. They are beautiful visually and tell fascinating stories with meaning.

Other games (Gears of War, Duke Nukem) are just mindless fun. There is nothing wrong with that. Most of them are very enjoyable, but that is just what they are.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

Nothing is art. Games are entertainment in various forms.

 

[Dark Harbinger]

You know what annoys me? Facebook classes Deus Ex, Shadow of the Colossus and Silent hill 2 as "games/toys". THOSE PHILISTINES!!!1! *uberrage*

Hahaha! Brilliantly said!

 

[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.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

That is true; video games are a far more diverse medium in that sense. I personally study them as a narrative art, but they are capable of so many more things than that. Which is why I think a distinction will be coming soon, between game games and artistic games. One would still be able to make the argument that they're all art (they still require a team of artists to make), but I think a distinction between games made to create competition and games made to for artistic reasons (which, by the way, include entertainment through the art form) would be helpful. But I still hold that it is important to consider video games an art form, because they are capable of it and recognition of that fact is what will allow us to study them as such. Film would never have developed as an art form the way it has if it was only recognized and appreciated by a few random guys that made artistic films; it had to be culturally accepted as a medium of creative expression. Just because not all video games are meant to be art does not mean that acceptance shouldn't happen, especially since the same discrepancy appears, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in every other artistic medium out there.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Games can express themselves, like any other medium - and maybe doing more than others, due to the interactivity of it, too.
Of course, what's regarded as art is subjective; my definition, at least, is that pretty much anything you do to express yourself, is art. Some games are made to be regarded as art, while others not; some games may express the thought of the developer, while others the thought of the player. And that can be done without a karma-system.
So yes, games are art; or, at the very least, some are.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

That poll is broken. My answer obviously depends on what game we're talking specifically.

 

[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?

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.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

That is true; video games are a far more diverse medium in that sense. I personally study them as a narrative art, but they are capable of so many more things than that. Which is why I think a distinction will be coming soon, between game games and artistic games. One would still be able to make the argument that they're all art (they still require a team of artists to make), but I think a distinction between games made to create competition and games made to for artistic reasons (which, by the way, include entertainment through the art form) would be helpful. But I still hold that it is important to consider video games an art form, because they are capable of it and recognition of that fact is what will allow us to study them as such. Film would never have developed as an art form the way it has if it was only recognized and appreciated by a few random guys that made artistic films; it had to be culturally accepted as a medium of creative expression. Just because not all video games are meant to be art does not mean that acceptance shouldn't happen, especially since the same discrepancy appears, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in every other artistic medium out there.

You seem to be arguing the point you want to argue rather than the counter to the point which I was making. In fact, your point kind of agrees with what I was saying. To put it simply

Some games are art, and some are toys.

Agreed?

 

[Dark Harbinger]

That poll is broken. My answer obviously depends on what game we're talking specifically.

It was a rather broad and general question and poll, interpret it however you want, heck if you think Duke Nukem games are art then say so!

 

[Pifflestick]

Games are the canvas, not the art. The gameplay lets you experience the wonderful artestry on display and improves your enjoyment of it.

 

[CM156_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 was going to say somthing like this, but you hit it on the head.

They are art, or at least I think so. However, I don't see why so many people are up in arms about to be honest.