Poll: Should Games become art?

[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.

You define game development, character design, level design, music composition, and writing as art.

Therefor, you define game developers, designers, musicians, and writers as artists.

How, then, can professional artists making art for years, which is then coordinated into one collage of said art by yet another professional artist POSSIBLY not be art??

How can something whose entire composition is art itself not be art?

First off, it may have been simply how you worded the bold part but that makes absolutely no sense.

Secondly, and I dunno how many times I've explained this at this point, I look at games AS GAMES. I don't play games to look for deeper meanings, not on the first go anyway. I play games to entertain myself. I may make an offhand observation that, hey, the colors really blend into the environment (El Shaddai), or that the music sounds really powerful (Soul Calibur [the first game, back on the Dreamcast]), or that the cartoony designs give some characters that much more appeal (Psychonauts).

So long and short, I look at the individual components for artistic merits, but the entire package is simply "entertainment". You are more than free to extend those artistic merits to the overall package - I am certainly not going to stop you. Just don't expect me to share the same thought process.

And to anyone else reading this, I'm done talking about this subject, so don't bother asking me to explain myself further.

 

[agent_orange420]

the traditional art forms are always against letting new media join into the coveted group of 'recognised artforms.'

The best thing that can come out of this would be if development companies could get funding from things like the arts council in the UK (not talking about the big players, but the little guys could benefit). I would certainly prefer to see more independent developers being able to survive rather than get absorbed into the giant companies like EA.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Games are already "art", in the techincal sense...

But art is subjective, so...

 

[FPSfanatic]

Video games are art. They are an idea expressed through a medium. not all video games are art, but not all paintings suggest ideas. Star Wars was concievably art, because it pushed people with new ideas into careers that never would have taken if it hadn't. and video games have done the same thing. Games like Bioshock, Bastion, Team fortress, even call of duty could push someone into looking into a career as a game designer. sure, It won't give everyone a push to join up as a game designer, but some will want to create worlds as enjoyable to be in as the ones they grow up enjoying. thats my definition of art, might be disagreed on, but its what I feel.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Seriously, can people stop arguing and bitching over petty things like this? Art is subjective, not to mention English is a living language. Does it really bother you that much if someone like Roger Ebert or Hideo Kojima defines a word differently than you do? Other people's opinions on games shouldn't influence your experiences with them.

 

[Dracowrath]

I think games gain some respect from non gamers if they are considered art. Someone who doesn't play them may become interested in a new game that's particularly artsy. However games don't HAVE to be art, and some are much less artsy than others. Other than potentially giving gamers a sense of entitlement (You're a painter? Psh, I'm a GAMER!), it probably won't make much difference.

If games are art, that means that the developers are artists not the gamers.

Yeah, I probably phrased that wrong. It would be more like "You're an art connoisseur? Psh, I'm a GAMER!" or perhaps "You're a sculpter? Psh, I'm a game designer!"

 

[Toriver]

As others have said, games are an art form much like film, but it's just where you classify individual movies or games. Someone said "High Art vs. Low Art", while I also like the "Good Art vs. Bad Art" term. The difference in art in games is like the difference in art in films: arthouse films, Citizen Kane, The Godfather trilogy, Gone With The Wind, and many other movies that will be remembered for their excellent quality or their message decades from now are Good Art in movies. Likewise, in games, it should take a high standard in quality of craftsmanship and/or the ability to present its message through the medium in order to gain "Good Art" or "High Art" status. And I'm not talking about mere graphical prettiness, I mean the overall production: gameplay mechanics, all aspects of aesthetics (graphics PLUS music, color scheme, atmosphere, etc), story and presentation of the story in the game, and other factors. This would at least apply for games starting in the 16-bit generation when such things were becoming easier to do within the game itself rather than relying on other media or text in walls or cryptic snippets. For older games, the "Good Art" ones would probably be those whose quality and/or innovation helped us to reach that point.

I would say, though, that there would be surprisingly few games in each generation that would fall under that category.

As for "Bad Art" or "Low Art", that's pretty much everything else: the games made solely for entertainment value or money that just follow along and don't bring anything new or inspiring to the table, and the games that do try to offer a message but fail to really make the presentation of that message ring true or feel unique or special in some way. You know, the stuff where you just don't get it or it hits you over the head like a ton of bricks every five minutes ad nauseam. In other words, about 90% of both the games and film industry.

Now, if games that are "Good Art" get the recognition they deserve, awesome. As others have mentioned, it helps pave the way for games to explore new ways in which to expand gaming as "Good Art" and also provide an entertaining experience for the consumer.

The problem arises when you get too many gamers who can't seem to tell the difference between "Good Art" and "Bad Art" and try to justify stupid things in gaming in the name of "artistic merit" when there really is no artistic merit to them whatsoever. Sorry guys, decapitating an alien in Halo Reach or watching the boobies bounce in the latest DOA installment isn't "Good Art" and it would make us look incredibly stupid to try to defend those things as such. While games are art, we do have to remember that within every art form there is a very wide range of quality, and something being art in itself does not automatically mean that it should have been created. Anyone can create an abomination in the name of their field, whether it be art, science, philosophy, politics, you name it, and we should kinda try to avoid that and call them out when we see them.

 

[CrazyJew]

Games already are art. We have great artists, like Tim Schafer, who create masterpieces every so rare, and we have kinder-gardens packed with kids named EA and IW and the lot, who turn in the same white house with a red triangle roof time after time.

 

[Rabid Chipmunk]

In my mind, you can't classify all works of a particular medium as "art." It's not the medium in which something is created that makes it art. It's the merits of the individual work that makes it art.

For example, I would classify Black Swan as a work of art. Debbie Does Dallas, on the other hand, I would not.

Since art is purely subjective, it's up to us to decide which games, as individual works, are art. I would classify games like The Bastion, Bioshock, and Portal as art. I would not classify games like Halo, Call of Duty, or Gears of War as art. Not to say that those three games aren't good (in fact I think they're all great games), but I'm reluctant to call them "works of art."

But like I, and countless others before me, have already said, art is purely subjective.

 

[DestinyDriven]

Games, as the result of a creative process are very hard to not consider as "art."

However, one can argue that your white-bread seen-before FPS is about as much art as your average mid-budget forgettable action cinema flick.

Games are art.
Films are art.
Novels are art
Music is art.
Painting is rt.
Etc.

You cannot say that Games are not art as a whole, but you can argue the individual case.

This. I'm glad I don't have to type all my thoughts out when someone else has put it so perfectly.

 

[AdamRBi]

Games are Art; or better phrased, Games are an Art Form.

Other Artforms include Film, Music, Paint, etc; all of which are known for being Art but often include non-art varieties as well. Just because home videos and documentaries aren't art doesn't mean Films aren't as a whole art. Music is an art, but one could very well write a jingle or a background track for something and those by themselves wouldn't be considered art; it doesn't make all Music non-art. We all know what paint is, it's used to color our walls and buildings. It's also used to make beautiful paintings, but we don't say paintings aren't art just because the tool which creates it is used for home improvement.

Basically the whole argument against it; Games are Toys, they're goal oriented, they're interactive; are missing the whole of the game and just plucking from it the game portion forgetting that often times those goals are just to deliver a different way of experiencing the art other then hearing or watching it. As for they're toys; I've seen people do incredible things with Legos, a children's toy, that I consider art.

For more, I point you to a post I made on another thread late last night. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.316024-Games-ARENT-Art?page=4#12843672]

 

[gigastrike]

"Become art"? Things don't "become" art, they either are or aren't. It doesn't matter what we consider them, or if we know or not.

 

[Tristan6928]

"Become art"? Things don't "become" art, they either are or aren't. It doesn't matter what we consider them, or if we know or not.

When i asked if games should become art, i meant to the eyes of the greater public. If you asked 60 random people in the street if they considered games to be art how many of them would say yes? By having the word art attached to games, will it improve the quality of the games we get? Will it increase the audience base for games? etc....

(I am really tired at the moment, so no idea if this makes sense.)

 

[renegade7]

Don't the Smithsonian and National Endowment for the Arts both recognize games as art?

 

[Tristan6928]

It is a useless title that people want attatched to games. The only reason I can think of for this is because some people are insecure and ashamed of their hobby they need that title to try and justify it.

There are other benefits! For example : most countries have grants for art, which could mean more experimentation and possibly raising the quality and originality of future games.

 

[Tristan6928]

Don't the Smithsonian and National Endowment for the Arts both recognize games as art?

The Smithsonian has an exposition on games but that doesn't mean that they classify them as art. Here's a link to an interview between the curator of the exposition and a journalist.

http://boingboing.net/2011/05/06/art.html