Poll: Should Games become art?

[Tristan6928]

Recently, in the U.S, games have officially been considered an art form.
This only means that under law, video games are art.

The battle still rages between those who think games are art, and those who think that games can never (or not any time soon) become art.

Although many people want games to become art, there is one point that is practically never mentioned in depth (in all the articles I've read and the presentations I've heard.)

Should games become art? Will they gain something by becoming art (apart from the prestige gained from having the word art attached to them)? Or, is it just a useless title that people want the word game to hold so that it will be regarded more highly within society?


In an article I've read recently, the interviewee stated that:
"Video games do not have to be art works. However, art and games are connected. Video games are in essence a visual medium that has yet to be properly contextualized within the confines of art and visual culture."
link: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6428/art_and_video_games_intersections.php


(Since there are as many definitions of art as there are hairs on my head (a lot). Can you guys post what your definition of art is.)


BTW: Just looking for opinions on the matter, nothing serious. Also, I am currently neutral on the matter.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Sure game don't have to be art but that would kind of be a sad day seeing as how it basically implies people stop caring about games. Art is a cultural idea and component. Its defined by the way an object is treated or though of rather then by any concrete measurable values. For games to not be art that means that people would stop reviewing them, stop cherishing them, stop caring about them and basically for the whole industry to have an apathy attack and die.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

If you look at it; Everything is Art. "What is that piece of shit doing on the floor? It suits the Oak Platform quite well, and I dub thee art!" Art in a sense is also Chaos. An ever changing entity with no true form. It changes between the tastes and ideals of each and every human being on this planet, and no amount of arguing will change Chaos or Individuality in any way.

But when someone doesn't call Video Games art they destroy the purpose of calling 'anything' art. This is what makes me mad about people who consider only what they like "art". Anything and Everything is art, and no amount of ignorance will change that fact. Movies I believe went through this same stage, as well as Radios.

Games may not be art to you, but it is certainly art to someone else, and that someone else coincidentally is me (and a good-many people of our planet). And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[SageRuffin]

I still say games themselves aren't art, and I've been a gamer for the better half of 25 years of existence.

Game development, however - character and level design, music composition, writing, et al - I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Well, games are art, for the most part... for good and bad, hell there's some stuff that's "art" that are far far less art than say... the music from crazy bus... and people still pay a blindingly high price cuz it's art... so games are at LEAST art... if not more than.

 

[adorabelle]

Depends on what your definition of art is. A definition that is far from easy in these times...

But let's stick, for the sake of brevity, with the criteria that are used for other mediums. Then not all games will be/are art, but some of them might be. It's what you do with the tools you are provided that matters... Kind of like the distinction between art house movies and popcorn movies.

 

[Tristan6928]

For games to not be art that means that people would stop reviewing them, stop cherishing them, stop caring about them and basically for the whole industry to have an apathy attack and die.

I don't agree with that statement. As long as there were humans, there were games (hide and seek, sports, board games). None of these games have ever demanded to be called art in the 3000+ years that we have existed. And yet, they are still extremely popular. Rugby, Basketball, and chess are played by millions of people world wild every day and yet they aren't classified as art. These games should have died according to what you said, and yet they still exist and are extremely popular. Videogames are new, and have grown significantly without being called an art form till recently.

 

[Saulkar]

As far as I am concerned, anything created by the hands of humans (or anything attached to the human body) can be subjectively considered art.

 

[Tristan6928]

Game development, however - character and level design, music composition, writing, et al - I wholeheartedly agree with.

So you're saying that process of creating the game is an artform, but not the game itself?

 

[Stall]

It depends on how you define art really.

Personally, I think the whole games are art crap stems from pseudo-intellectual 14-24 year olds who feel insecure about playing games for some reason, so they decided to start calling games "art" instead to help justify it to society and more importantly themselves. To some people, say "games are art" is a way they can justify their hobby.

There's a chance games will become art, but I really doubt it. I mean, when I think of art, I think of Beethoven's 9th or Bach's Johannes Passion. Video games will simply never have anywhere NEAR the impact and depth of some of these pieces of music (if you disagree, then you probably have never listened to these pieces). The most enduring pieces of art have been created by some of the most brilliant minds to ever walk the earth: it's just not something video games have a hope to compete with.

 

[SonicKoala]

I can't provide a general, all-encompassing definition of "art" - as someone previously noted, almost anything can be construed as art if looked at from a particular perspective.

I can, however, attempt to provide a definition of "good art" - a crucial characteristic of good art, in my opinion,, would be the production of affect in its audience; this is something which needs to, for lack of a better word, move the audience in some way or another. I can look at an aesthetically pleasing portrait, or watch an entertaining movie, or play a fun video game - however, if the only reaction these particular works elicit from me is an admittance that they were "pretty" or "entertaining" or "fun", then that particular work, although arguably art, was not good art. However, it should be noted that the work does not have to have an emotionally positive affect on its audience (i.e. leaving you feeling "happy" or "inspired" is not necessary - some of the best films I've seen or novels I've read have left me utterly depressed); for me, the most practical way of measuring the depth of a work's impact or affect would be to look at the endurance of that impact - in other words, how long that work "stayed with you".

Of course, affect is not the only characteristic of good art, but it is, in my opinion, one of the most essential. To answer the original question of the thread, I would say that yes, games should be art. Of course, I'm going by my definition, and the types of games which tend to have this enduring impact on me are the really good ones. And I, for one, would love to continue playing really good games for as long as this medium holds my interest.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As mentioned, the definition of "art" is very vague and subjective.

In any case, so what? A bunch of judges/whomever with nothing better to do in the US say games are art? What effect, if anything, does this have?

 

[Tristan6928]

Video games will simply never have anywhere NEAR the impact and depth of some of these pieces of music (if you disagree, then you probably have never listened to these pieces).

Although, i partially agree with some of your points, never say never

 

[Twilight_guy]

For games to not be art that means that people would stop reviewing them, stop cherishing them, stop caring about them and basically for the whole industry to have an apathy attack and die.

I don't agree with that statement. As long as there were humans, there were games (hide and seek, sports, board games). None of these games have ever demanded to be called art in the 3000+ years that we have existed. And yet, they are still extremely popular. Rugby, Basketball, and chess are played by millions of people world wild every day and yet they aren't classified as art. These games should have died according to what you said, and yet they still exist and are extremely popular. Videogames are new, and have grown significantly without being called an art form till recently.

In sports the sport itself is categorized in roughly the same way as art. Individual plays and actions may be evaluated and treated like art. If you think sports aren't art then go talk to that fans who painted themselves in team colors with almost no clothes on in below 0 weather. You can't tell me that admiration doesn't constituent the kind of affection that defines art. In the same way games are are treated with an admiration as art. I don't define art by the wishy washy non-definitions that people come up with junk about needing to have X or Y. I choose to define art as a cultural aspect that is far more axiomatic and says the art is based on how we react rather then any thing in and of itself. Games survive because people treat them specially. There being treated specially is art. If they weren't art then they would not have come anywhere near where they are because people just wouldn't be interested.
Aside from that, why are you just making the blanket assumption that I'm talking about all kinds of games ever? Why can't I talk about video games alone? Why can't I refer to an subset of games? Why did you turn my argument into a straw-man and try to batter it down that way?

 

[Braedan]

Why does it matter?

This is all.

 

[crudus]

Does a game need to be art for me to enjoy it? Nope, games are fun in of themselves. Will I argue when people say that games aren't are? Yep. I personally don't care, but I do get people to see where I am coming from.

 

[loc978]

I find myself typing something to this effect entirely too often, but...

By the definition of "art" in Mirriam-Webster dictionaries, anything that is the product of human effort and is intended to be art is art... beyond that, there is no discussion when defining what is and is not "art".

The real issue at hand is whether or not games should be censored. I say they shouldn't, but then, I blame bad parenting for bad children... not media outlets.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

If the game was intended to be art, it is art. Simple as that. Of course, I can't remember the last time I ripped an 8 hour session of staring at the Mona Lisa.

 

[The Virgo]

Not all games are "art" (Painkiller, anyone?), but that doesn't make them any less good or any less bad. One thing is to never bank or sell anything based on its artistic merit alone. There should always be some sort of concrete base to it so that it could support itself without the art.

Example: Avatar. Basically - "Pocahontas in Space". Really, if you stripped away all that fancy CGI, it would have been just an okay movie. A videogame example: MYST. I could never figure out shit in that game. However, what saves it for me is its aesthetics! The music, those old graphics ... can't get enough of it. If it had modern graphics, though, I don't think I would like it as much.

The game Braid is art. I've only played the demo, but GODDAMN it is beautiful!

 

[Stall]

Video games will simply never have anywhere NEAR the impact and depth of some of these pieces of music (if you disagree, then you probably have never listened to these pieces).

Although, i partially agree with some of your points, never say never

I'm pretty content with saying "never" . These pieces are some of the single most crowning achievements in artistic endeavors in the history of our race. This isn't really hyperbole really: Bach is probably one of the single most brilliant minds who ever walked the earth, and Beethoven's 9th is widely considered to be the single greatest piece of classical music ever written. And yeah, Beethoven is also pretty close to being one of the single greatest minds who ever lived as well.

The biggest thing for me is that art needs to be timeless. Bach's music is timeless: it has been unfathomably brilliant and undeniably beautiful for the last 250+ years, and will probably continue to be as powerful and incredible for the next 250 years. It's something that any generation, past, present, or future, can fall in love with and truly appreciate. I really, honestly cannot see someone picking up a video game 200 years from now and finding it meaningful. They might find it fun as a novelty, but it won't move them like Beethoven's 9th would.

The game Braid is art. I've only played the demo, but GODDAMN it is beautiful!

Braid is pretentious garbage.