Poll: Should Games become art?

[Discon]

I really don't understand the need to brand everything. Does a game change its qualities if some organ of the state decides it's art? Can't things be judged on their own merits?

 

[Tristan6928]

I wish you had asked "Do games have to be art?" instead of "Should games be considered art?".
Games should have the option of whether they want to be art or not. If the game is about a shillouette of a young boy traveling through a perilous dimension of black and white to learn the fate of his sister, then "Art" is probably what it's going for. Now, if the game wants to be about a machismo fueled anti-hero in black sunglasses who has to save the women of earth from aliens with horribly defined motives, then it's probably not trying to be art. However, both of these are awesome.
Besides, "art" doesn't nessecarily translate to "good". Is the ugliest painting in the world art? Yes, but it's still a freaking ugly painting.
Another thing about art is that it's only art if you think it is. I don't care if anyone else thinks/doesn't think that it's art, I'll decide.

What I'm truly looking for are reasons for why games would want to become art. People either say games are art or games can never be art. Why are these people saying these things. Is it valuable for a game to have the title art attached to it? Will it somehow improve future games? etc...

This thread did get side tracked a bit. Put some people are still typing up good reasons.
Such as:

I voted "dunno" because my opinion can't be expressed properly by what other options there are. I think that games don't have to, or even need to be art. But I think it's a great thing that they now can be art. Can some games be enhanced by officially being art? Sure. Do all games need to be called art? Nope. Do all games need to be art? Nope. But it's a great thing that games can officially be called art. This also means that some games that are actually meant to be art could get a grant to be made without the author having to pay out of their pocket. This doesn't mean that you could, should, can, or even would call games like Call of Duty: Black Ops, or Battlefield: Bad Company 2, or Final Fantasy 3 art. But the fact that you can now actually consider games like Bioshock, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Half-life 2, and perhaps later Final Fantasy games (Wouldn't know about the Final[small](est)[/small] Fantasy games, don't play them; not my thing.) to be art is a great step towards this medium being as respected as every other currently is.

But i do agree that it is the Dev's choice if they want their game to be an art game or just a game.

 

[kotorfan04]

First, I think art is one of those VERY VERY subjective things. For something to be art it has to do two things a.) express an idea or sentiment b.) elicit an emotional reaction of some sort from the viewer. The problem is that most days art has become a synonym for pretentious. Hell, a lot of the "great works of art" don't strike me at all, the Mona Lisa was masterfully crafted, and very well done, but I don't know what it is trying to say, nor do I know what emotion it is attempting to elicit. As for games, some of them can be art. I would go so far as to say the first Modern Warfare was art. Bioshock, definitely art. Deadrising, one of the campiest zombie games ever made and one of my favorite games ever also art.

I think the biggest trap we as gamers can fall into is equating art with artsy, art can still be fun and entertaining. If a game ever made you laugh, and I mean really laugh, not just snicker at some stupid joke, cry, or feel fear, then that game was art. If it ever stopped to make you think for a moment, to reevaluate your decisions in game and out, then that game was art.

But then, that is my opinion, and if anyone cares to disagree with me then I am all for it.

 

[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.

 

[Tristan6928]

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.

 

[mythlover20]

Games ARE art. They always have been. That is not the question. The REAL question is whether they are HIGH or LOW Art.

High art is not only well executed; it has a point. Not a purpose, which in the case of games is to entertain. But a POINT. It makes an observation regarding human society/condition/psychology/etc and uses it's medium to subversely expose our conscious mind to it, where it's players/readers/viewers would have previously been oblivious to it. Examples would be A Passage to India by E M Poster, Citizen Cane, and for games probably Silent Hill 2.

Low art is art because it basically contains art. It has a purpose, but makes not point. It has no overarching social commentary woven into it's narrative. Examples would be: (Literary) the entire romance genre, (Film) the entire RomCom genre, and (Games) pretty much everything else.

The definitions of high and low art are of course varied between individuals, genres, and specialisations, but generally speaking if it does not have a POINT (again not purpose. It is not a piece of art's point to be enjoyed. That is it's PURPOSE!) it is not High Art.

 

[Tristan6928]

They CAN be art. They don't HAVE to be art. So no, I wouldn't say ALL games need to be art, but I believe that they can be art just as much as films or books.

here we go 100% my answer

although that poll doesnt really allow for it. Not a very good poll tbh.

Ah well, the poll was suppose to be an extra whilst the replies are the main course.
But you're right, it is a terrible poll.

 

[Frederik Bro Johansen]

videogames have and will always be art.

 

[Rawne1980]

And I feel like i'm repeating myself and thats not a good thing .... makes me think i'm going senile aswell as grey.

Aaaaanyway.....

I started gaming in 1985 and, up until recently, have never heard anyone claiming games to be "art".

Does categorising them as "art" make them more socially acceptable to play?

No, it still makes them a hobby or something to pass the time with.

In fact, it's only people I see around this website that argue so vehemently that games are art.

I suppose "some" games could be classfied as "art" but as I see it, art is a form of expression correct?

The only expression some games give off is "give us your money fool".

To me, games are games and art is art. I'm in my 30's and stuck in my ways and not liable to change my opinion.

Although going by what people class as "art" these days i've left a nice little bit of "art" floating in my toilet. Should take it down to a gallery you know some fethwipe will buy it.

 

[dontlooknow]

You know when you say the same word over and over again until it loses any meaning? It seems like that's sort of what's going on here - there's not very much to be gained from slapping a big fat "Art" label on everything, from Duke Nukem to Europa Universalis to Portal. No one in their right mind would stand up for Alien vs Predator being "artistic", yet we still acknowledge films as a fundamentally artistic medium. If it weren't for that blunt part in your head that searches for the next frothy-mouthed catharsis, moments of actual intrigue and insight wouldn't have the same significance.

"Art" in the broader, more socio-political sense, is just another way of saying "validation". It is important that governments and the public recognise games as "art" because that's the pre-determined token that somehow allows them to do more interesting and experimental things - Coriline, for all its quirky problems, is a good example of a game that simple couldn't have existed ten years ago. But that's not because it would be too technically difficult, or because the gibbering malevolent sensors would have crushed it; it's because the idea simply wouldn't have crossed devs' or gamers' minds that that sort of game could exist.

To try and argue whether or not "games are art" is to miss the point that games can be pretty much anything; realising what could be the most immersive and interactive medium that has ever been available to us, means accepting that the social and artistic limits imposed in the medium's infancy are only the origins of what could turn out to be one of the most diverse artistic mediums available to humanity.

 

[Stall]

If Beethoven had lived a couple hundred years earlier, you would never have heard of him. Or Mozart, or any of the others, no matter how brilliant they were. They were incredibly fortunate to live in a time in which their music could be written down, when new instruments were being made, when music was studied at a scientific level, and when kings and emperors would pay them to do what they did best. Better yet, they managed to latch on towards the beginning, before the masters' pantheon was sealed shut. Even if someone today did out-do Beethoven or Bach in classical composition, their work would never be acknowledged as such any more than one could be said to out-write Shakespeare.

This relates back to video games in that they are regarded as socially inferior regardless of their merits. One cannot state a love of gaming above classical music without forfeiting one's claim to class. Art is not a subjective world, but a rigidly hierarchical one where certain forms of painting and music sit at the top and gaming sits near, if not at, the bottom.

First things, first, Western music has always been written down. Even during the Medieval and Renaissance eras, music was still recorded. These are the eras that would be "a couple hundred years" before Beethoven and Mozart. The primary differentiating factor here is that there was no standard for musical notation that existed shortly after 1600. If no one wrote down music during this era, then how are musicians playing music from these eras? Just because there was no standard for writing music does not mean people did not write it down. Most sources seem to believe that the first time music was written down was the 900s, which is almost a THOUSAND years before Beethoven or Mozart.

Second, kings, emperors, and (especially) the churches had been the prime employers of composers since the Renaissance and Medieval eras of music. These three institutions have ALWAYS employed musicians. The church was almost the sole employer of musicians during the periods of early Western music, and they were most likely very meticulous with their transcription and record keeping of their music (this is why we still have Gregorian Chant). This practice just didn't willingly manifest itself into being during the Baroque Era: it existed years prior to it. Again, you would have to go back a THOUSAND years to reach an era where your statement has anything CLOSE to actual merit.

Third, music theory (the study of music "scientifically") has always existed in some limited capacity since music began. People have always looked and analyzed music in a deep and meaningful way. You can, quite easily, find papers in the Baroque era discussing harmonies and counterpoint. This 'scientific' study of music has existed for sure during the Baroque era, and you can most likely find evidence (among liturgical papers I suspect) of deeper and meaningful discussions of the mechanics of music in the eras of early Western music. Again, you would need to go back MUCH further than a few hundred years to reach an era where such discussion did not exist. I get the serious suspension that you did not know the scope in which Western music HAD been developed and cemented during these eras of early music, as many of your critique hold quite true for "a couple hundred". It's moderately understandable: early music does not receive much play time or recognition. Even I must admit to knowing very little actual composition during these eras.

Fourth, there have been many, MANY masters who have existed after Beethoven. After Beethoven, we've had brilliant minds like: Wagner, Mendelssohn, Chopin and Liszt (if anything for their contributions to the art of performance itself), Mahler, Debussy, Schoenberg, and hundreds of other brilliant minds who graciously wrote down their music for us to enjoy (I am still a little asleep, so I cannot think of as many as I should). There is no such thing as the "master's pantheon," as masters continued to exist even after it was "closed".

Fifth, the reason no one has even out-written Bach is because he is THAT GOOD. It isn't because the "master's pantheon" has been shut: it's because he was the true and most absolute definition of "master". People who call this man the greatest composer of classical music who has ever lived aren't just doing it out of custom, you know. He is LEGITIMATELY the single most brilliant mind who has ever written music. Even someone with a very basic and rudimentary understanding of music theory such as myself can see the unbelievable complexity within his music. Bach isn't just all talk: he was practically a demigod.

So tl;dr? You don't really know much about the history of Western music.

Lastly, I discussed the "merits" of video games as art. I said that they have no hopes of every being as emotionally meaningful and powerful as most of the art that has preceded it. This is just simple fact as far as I am concerned: even the most emotionally powerful games cannot even come close to resonance of a beautiful and well constructed piece of music or a great work of literature. The media is too young and too underdeveloped to compete with these established media, and did not have the right atmosphere upon creation to develop quickly into art like film did.

 

[Veylon]

You don't really know much about the history of Western music.

Since this appears to be undeniably true, I'll just admit I was wrong here. This is what I get for using IIRC for a source. Thank you for enlightening me. I'll have to look into this more in detail.

 

[Savagezion]

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?

(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.)

Games are art in their very nature. From the modeling, texturing, musical scores, all the way down to the coding. A lot of people think me retarded for saying so but the coding alone can be pretty artistic despite the fact that there are "rules" or guidelines or whatever you want to call it.

Games (their traditional term) are a medium that can deliver the same expressionism in other artistic medium with the potential of delivering it even better; it uses the player's own perspective as something inherent to the presentation. By doing this, they effectively allow the audience to not only witness the experience but to be a part of it and be able to explore it in many different ways. Thus allowing multiple venues of presentation on the same ideologies or stories/characters. This doesn't only mean branching paths or free roam. I am also refering to holding the player accountable for their actions. Shadow of the Colossus is a great example of this. There were no branching paths and no free roam that mattered, however it was the bond you formed with the lead character and the stories play on a common game trope that shocked the player into a dilemma. As a movie, a book, or really anything other than a game this story is pretty bland. But as a game it is great because what matters is the trials you (the player) and Wander have been through and why. This captures something that is hard to do in other mediums and yet this game did it seemingly effortlessly.

Now, I am not saying that every game needs to be Shadow of the Colossus or offer a lot of branching gameplay and/or free roam to be enjoyable or let alone great. Games like Team Fortress are totally unaffected by this. I still consider Team Fortress a piece of art in its own right but if someone doesn't it just tells me how snooty their art palette is.

Games being a form of art doesn't ruin games and it doesn't ruin the term art. Art is done out of passion, not trying to fit the confines of someone's criteria. A lot of games are simply made out of passion to try and deliver an experience the developers are proud of. Triple A games fail on a constant basis trying to fit the criteria of statistic sales. However, that is not to say that triple A games cannot be art despite the fact they are trying to fit criteria. It just simply makes it harder to do so and requires a better team. It all depends on where the focus in the development is. Homefront is a good example of this. It tried to be something it didn't end up being. They tried to cash in on a lot of things but what they ended up with was a mediocre shooter with really nothing to offer.

For a bit of blasphemy, it is possible that the new X-Com might be a good game and not be a good X-com game. (I am not saying it will be, just that it could be.) Everything I have read or watched on it seems like the team involved is passionate about the idea. The negative feedback is the cause for some of the press releases but only a small portion of them. Artistically, from what I can tell they are butchering the X-com title to make a statistically-proven-to sell FPS. So my hopes are low on an artistic level. This game is trying to use a name that statistically a good seller with a genre that is statistically a good seller and the backdrop of 50s Americana which is statistically a good seller. The best we could hope for is for the story to frame up as a prequel to the original X-Com and have it be an enjoyable game. Then artistically, they will have knocked it out of the park.

My definition of art is merely the result of someone passionately trying to convey something to someone else as best they can through a craft. Acting is a craft, writing is a craft, sculpture is a craft, music is a craft, and games are a craft, as well as many others. As soon as someone tries to convey something in that craft - it becomes art. Bioshock was trying to convey something on to the player. Bioshock is an artistic game that is also a fun game.

Games are an artistic medium. This doesn't mean they stand to lose anything by that title anymore than a green eyed man stands to lose or gain something by being recognized as a man with green eyes. What it means is that some games can actually have meaning involved in them. They won't ever gain that because they have already had it all this time. Nothing is going to change about games now that people are seeing their artistic merit. Something about how some are made might but not in the mainstream. If we were to gain anything it would be grants to independent developers to innovate the industry. However games stand to lose nothing by this. If someone thinks that games should not be called art they need to really step back and re-examine why they think it is such a bad thing that games are being deemed acceptable to convey something more to the viewer than blow shit up and score points; because they have been doing it all this time despite the fact that society was dismissive of it.

 

[Innegativeion]

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?

 

[Matt Hancox]

I don't think it's as Black and White as art, or not art.
Take movies as an example; some films can be considered art, while others are watched to unwind.

Video games are a medium by which developers can express themselves in new and exciting ways, and that should be encouraged.
But still, give me something violent and shooty/slashy for the weekends.

 

[DarkRyter]

They are art.

Someone made them. Art.

Simple as that.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No. Games can not be art. Games are made purely to make money, not to communicate or invoke an emotion or a feeling. Yes games can invoke emotion, but thats just part of a story, have something sad or whatever - but that happens in movies and books or music. But i wouldn't class every single movie, book or music that made me feel something as art.

Art is created for the sake of itself. The artist creates it to express himself. Other media may look pretty, make you feel something but its only created, first and foremost, to make money. If their was no money to be made then that game, or movie or album wouldnt exist. Just because you think it looks nice, doesnt make it art.

 

[Xanadu84]

Of course they are art. It's nonsense to say otherwise. Scrawling in crayon by 2 year old's are art. Poop thrown on the walls in a museum is art. Art is a pretty damn broad umbrella, and excluding games doesn't make a lick of sense unless you want to feel cool and pretentious by excluding games. The real question is what value any given game has as art, and what sort or artistic endeavors can make games better, more fun, and more enjoyable.