True art work is moving, so can games truely be considered art?

[Braedan]

Some games are art, some games aren't just like my 9th grade video of stupid kids jumping off shit and getting hurt is not art.

The bigger question is who gives a shit if it's art? Why is it a big deal? Art is subjective, and if it's art to you, then it's fuckin art. Now, can we stop talking about it, and shoehorning "Games are art" into every conversation?

 

[nekoaitsu]

That's a poor argument. However, even if that was necessary, there are plenty of games with heartrending moments. Because I'm sure they haven't been mentioned, Earthbound (Mother 2) and Mother 3 are great examples.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Yeah, games can be moving. And, according to the Smithsonian, the NEA, and common sense, they're art

 

[moose_man]

Yessssssssss. I've cried at games.

 

[KorLeonis]

Aeris being stabbed in FFVII.

This. Not a raging fanboy, won't try to defend the series or ever that particular game as a masterwork. But I was young and impressionable, I spent hours in FF7 getting to know and love the characters, and then Aeris is murdered in front of you, out of the blue. I was a terrible moment, made me hate Sephiroth. First time I had ever emotionally invested in hunting and killing the video game enemy who had done that to my friend.

No painting on the wall, including the ones I saw in the Louvre, has ever affected me that way. By the OP's definition then, FFVII is art and the Mona Lisa is not.

 

[Nfritzappa]

Why does art always need to evoke the emotion of sadness? I didn't cry when I first saw the Mona Lisa.

Did you see the original...In person? I somehow doubt that.

 

[GiantRaven]

But most would say its animal abuse (thats dog food the words are made of, and its just out of reach of the dog, though it knows and smells its there. So its a constant reminder and is essential edible food for a starving dog that is just out of its reach), but the art community has had the most lively debates as to whether this is art or not.

Wasn't the dog secretly being fed? From what I recall, the whole thing was a statement on how people wouldn't intervene if they were told not to, or something to that effect.

 

[Kagim]

A simple guide to something becoming art...

Step one... Someone makes something...

Step two... The creator states that it is art...

Congratulations! You have created art!

As soon as people begin to realize art can be crappy, pointless piles of shit soaked in monkey vomit and the title of 'art' does not confer any sophistication or inherit superiority people will stop debating over whether something is 'art' or not.

All it takes for something to be art is for it to be a)Created b)Claimed as art by the creator.

The pre-occupation with whether something is 'art' or not seems to get more aggressive the farther you get away from the actual creators. The less the person has to do with the actual creation of art the more the person fiercely decrees things they don't like as not 'art'.

Art critics, hacks and consumers are desperate to draw lines in the sand as to what constitutes art and what doesn't. As always the lines they draw are arbitrary and can almost always be traced back to simply Things they don't like and things they do.

"OH! Bioshock is ART but Modern Warfare isn't!"

Why?

"Because Bioshcok has such a DEEEP story line!! Moderen WARFARE is just another SHOOTER and is Generic!"

Bioshock's 'deep' storyline can be summed up in three words. What a tweest!

*Monocule pops RIGHT out and into their glass of Pinot Noir*


People will scream and fuss about how rap isn't really music simply because rap music has now become mentally linked to gangster rap. Despite the fact that even if the content is objectionable you can't simply disqualify it as a form of art.

What this all boils down to is this.

When someone likes soemthing, they call it art. be it video games, music, movies, what ever. They scream that it is art so that they can get a slight high off the idea. The thought of being into art has long been connected to the idea that you are somehow smarter are more intelligent then others. The artsy intellectual. Thus associating anything you like with 'art' suddenly gives you an ego boost.

Of course, what goes better with an ego boost then decrying others. Things you don't like are not 'art'. You can create a thousand reasons why its not 'art' simply by listing why you don't like it. Once again this gives you an ego boost because it reminds you while your busy playing high class artsy games all the neanderthals are playing World of Warcraft and Halo. You get a superiority high.

So what is art? Art is a creation that the creator deems to be art.

It can be awful, stupid, uninspiring, derivative dribble and your morning bowel movement looks better then. it's still art none the less.

Finally. I only read the first post, and honestly this little rant isn't aimed at anyone who has posted thus far in the thread, not even the OP. Nor do i mean for it to be pointed at anyone in particular. If you feel i am calling you out I'm not. This rant gets longer ever time the words games and art get tossed into the same sentence.

 

[Blayze2k]

There's plenty of artwork that doesn't make me emotional.
Hell, I almost never get emotional looking at paintings. I just don't find anything stirring about them, in terms of emotions.
I still appreciate them as art.

No offense, but the whole premise of the OP seems pretty pretentious. The whole concept of "true" art, and the idea that art should always be one particular thing... these aren't helpful to the artistic community.
Art is something a person creates out of a desire to create rather than working towards a pragmatic purpose. That's all the definition one really needs.
[Yes, I'm aware that art often *does* serve a pragmatic purpose, but that's rarely the original intention, and even when it IS an intended result, there's generally a good deal of aesthetic or extraneous work done.]

We shouldn't limit art to one specific purpose, like evoking emotion. Yes, it's nice when something can be emotionally evocative, but sometimes I just like to be entertained, and sometimes I just like to appreciate the technical aspects of a piece.

 

[Pontus Hashis]

A painting or picture can be art, becus it can creat introspection or emotional resonance, and I can say that so can videogames.
As for makeing the avrage person "get it", that is not the goal of art.The goal is to creat something that has a meaning. It might be to be funny or to state something. And as I've said, games have done that.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Red Dead Redemption was very emotional, didn't make me cry but if I let it I would of cried.

I second that. I started playing thinking 'YEEHAW COWBOYS!' but as I got more and more involved in the characters I actually felt moved by the end, and kinda empty by the point I finished it.

 

[mariofan1000]

Mother 3 had a lot of people tear up.

 

[gazumped]

There's a games design course at the University of the Arts London.
Just sayin'.

 

[CheckD3]

First off, just because it doesn't make you cry doesn't mean it isn't art. I rarely if ever cry at movies and haven't found a painting that's ever made me cry

What did invoke emotions in my once was Portal 2,

Spoiler

When Glados comes online and "kills" Wheatley, and I had fallen in love with the little guy, so I was sad. When I realized he was alive, I was overcome with joy

 

[Fanboy]

Why does art always need to evoke the emotion of sadness? I didn't cry when I first saw the Mona Lisa.

Did you see the original...In person? I somehow doubt that.

No. Did I say I saw the original? : )

 

[Thespian]

I believe that games cant be considered art until a video game is made that can move the average person to tears. True art work is able to move someone emotionaly, and after all the years i've been playing games the only thing thats ever really moved me was when Donkey Kong went into his banana horde and saw it empty. If anyone has a good example of a moving game let me know, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever shead a tear over pixels.

Holy crap, this is a coincidence.

Alrighty, it's my birthday, and I had a really crappy, stressful week. I just downloaded Rez HD off of XBLA. Playing it just relieved all the stress of the week. All the worries, exams, doubts. I sat in a dark room and let the retro music pull me in and I didn't even notice as time whizzed by. When I stopped tears were pouring down my cheeks.

That said, games don't need to do that to be art, not at all. It's just funny that the timing was so good.

 

[Mstrswrd]

I believe that games cant be considered art until a video game is made that can move the average person to tears. True art work is able to move someone emotionaly, and after all the years i've been playing games the only thing thats ever really moved me was when Donkey Kong went into his banana horde and saw it empty. If anyone has a good example of a moving game let me know, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever shead a tear over pixels.

Not true; I have never onc ebeen "moved' by any piece of art; music, movies, paintings, pictures, etc, I've never even once felt anything other then fleeting emotion (and that's usually either I'm laughing and then I'm not, or I'm riled up from a particularly good action scene). I've never been "moved" by a agme either. On the other hand, I've gotten closer to being "moved" by games then I have with anything else; Why should I care about what happens to the guy on screen? It's his journey, not mine. On the other hand, I do care about what happens to my characters; they're mine. I control them, I'm alng for the journey with them. I still sto-short of actually ever being truly invested emotionally, but still, it get's closer then others.

Also, sadness is not the be-all, end-all for art. In fact, I'g so far as to say that Sadness isn't actually that common in art; yeah, there's a lot of it, but when compared to the number of pieces of art that are joyous, or somber, or any other emotion, or are emotionless but technically perfect, or things like a series of Bronze blocks set up in a formation (this is art, by the way, by a well-known sculptor. He ordered Bronze blocks, arranged them into a pillar-like shape on a pole, and it's considered art).

So yeah, if something like Bronze blocks on a pole, or a toilet seat (remember that one? I think it was in France) can be considered art, then games can most definitely be considered art.

 

[emeraldrafael]

But most would say its animal abuse (thats dog food the words are made of, and its just out of reach of the dog, though it knows and smells its there. So its a constant reminder and is essential edible food for a starving dog that is just out of its reach), but the art community has had the most lively debates as to whether this is art or not.

Wasn't the dog secretly being fed? From what I recall, the whole thing was a statement on how people wouldn't intervene if they were told not to, or something to that effect.

it was. Or at least there were rumors and one or two instances of it. But yeah, the art itself is called you are what you see (which is in whats in the kibble).

 

[LinkasZelda]

I believe that games cant be considered art until a video game is made that can move the average person to tears. True art work is able to move someone emotionaly, and after all the years i've been playing games the only thing thats ever really moved me was when Donkey Kong went into his banana horde and saw it empty. If anyone has a good example of a moving game let me know, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever shead a tear over pixels.

I'm a ridiculously empathetic person, so I can honestly say that quite a few games have made me tear up and/or full out bawl.
I wont say why due to spoilers, but here are a few:

-Eternal Sonata
-Yoshi Story
-Golden Sun
-Paper Mario 2
-Tales of the Abyss

Although I don't belive that something has to be "sad" to be profound or artistic. That seems like a very "emo" and this generations mentality.
Look at games like Crysis, the details are impeccable, the graphics are stunning, the story is moving, it really is a work of art.