Wait, so video games aren't art?

[Kortney]

That blasted Rock n Roll music won't ever amount to anything and isn't real music!

People are the same no matter what decade.

 

[BlackWidower]

No, she's narrow minded and solipsistic. As are most high school teachers. They rarely get their opinions challenged so they are never tested, and therefore, never thought through. Of course there are a few exceptions, but it's rare.

 

[ckam]

Ask her why it's not art. Odds are she'll contradict herself. Or you can be the rebel and write about video games being art without her permission. I say go for the latter choice.

But, she probably has never actually given the time of day to actually play a video game. "Don't judge a book by it's cover" comes to mind.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Generally speaking, I would agree with the assertion that video games are not art. There are certainly games that have artistic aspects to them, there have even been rare instances where someone attempts literal art with the medium. But by and large a mechanical system, no matter how well crafted or designed, has no emotional impact on me and as such does not qualify as art as far as I am concerned.

 

[Magicman10893]

I actually wrote a 20 something page research paper on the subject of games as a valid art form, so this really pisses me off. She is yet another ignorant person that hasn't gotten past the phase where games where exclusively children's toys... back in the 70s and 80s. The struggle games go through is very similar to the struggle comics went through back in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Comics were simply seen as a children's entertainment, but at the same time, harmful because of their content (crime, violence). Comics were burned, banned and constantly protested. The flak eventually died down and then eventually there was some re-branding done, namely the creation of graphic novels. Works such as The Watchmen opened up the way for comics and graphic novels to be taken seriously as art. Video games are still in the phase of being protested, but will eventually get the recognition they deserve.

She is kinda right, most of our media is pure entertainment purposes and thus loses the emotionality (according to spell check thats a word now) of other art forms. Notice i say most, yes there are some meaningful gems in our collection but considering we only get maybe 2-3 really artistically valid games a year its fair to rule us out for now.

Movies and games are equal parts art and entertainment. You are right that there aren't a lot of emotionally riveting games and most games boil down to blowing shit up, shooting guys in the balls and lopping heads off with over sized swords wielded by men with chest muscles the size of paving slabs and are so manly they lactate Red Bull and all the women are frail sex objects wearing about as much clothing as women at topless beaches even when they should be wearing full plate armor, the same could be said for most movies.

Would you call comedy movies emotionally riveting when most of the more recent ones boil down to 2 hours of dick jokes and vulgar lines with no real substance that people quote for a few months to feign being funny to impress their friends? Would you call an action movie that basically takes the last sentence form the above paragraph art? Would you call a sexploitation movie art? How about blaxploitation movies like I'm Gonna Get You Sucka? I honestly can't remember the last emotionally riveting movie that made us explore the human condition.

To sum up what I am saying, movies are just as guilty with the pure entertainment purpose as games are.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

they are as much art as anything is art, after all art is meant to entertain by way of making people feel emotion and based on the amount of tears ive shed playing video games it couldnt be anything but an artistic medium.

While you have a point (that you have played games that you consider art), but that does not mean the medium is inherently an artistic one. Writing is not, at a basic level, art. Paint and canvas is not, by virtue of it's quality of being, art. A collection of tones is not, inherently music. Each of these things is just a means of communication, itself a dull and mechanical thing. One can certainly take these mechanical things and produce something that creates an emotional response (and thus would qualify for the most acceptable definition of art), but no single part of the process ensures the result is art. Paint on a canvas, sculpted marble and letters constructed into words strung together into sentences have precisely the inherent qualities I described.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Games are an art form, my English teachers pulled the same arguement until I showed them how games were art, at which point they had enough level-headedness to accept such as long as I didn't focus on games all about violence, such as the modern warfare series.

Your teacher isn't insane, she's simply from an earlier time period, so she feels that games aren't a true art form, just as originally movies weren't considered a true art form.

 

[Jackle_666]

An ignorant opinion from someone who is so arrogant they think they can define art

 

[Zanaxal]

There's way more art and creativity in a game then a book or a movie, movies are even using "game technology" thats the 3d rendered enviroments etc that are so popular. The most grossing movie of all time "avatar" is 50% videogame for pete sake, just missing the gameplay . But thats due to games require alot of effort and Designing to create. The art of games have really lept forward after the latest grafic innovations. Ppl like these are probably thinking like of pacman and tetris, not much art there.

I wish the dev's would focus on the gameplay more tho, last years its like they have taken several steps back in gameplay innovation in favour of art and making games so easy monkey children could play them. Mostly thinking of every kind of sequals and Fps's. Probably cause the art uses so much disckspace they have to chuck the game bits out (Mgs4 anyone?)

 

[Motakikurushi]

Someone's probably already mentioned this, but just show anybody who doubts the potential of video games being artistic Machinarium. They'll either be convinced or weep joyful tears of resplendence and benevolence over its beautiful design.

 

[bak00777]

dont worry, when our generation, the generation raised with video games, are the ones teaching, and leading the world. video games will be given their proper recognition.

 

[Thyunda]

They are not art. They are made to make money only - how they look has nothing to do with it.

Do I need to raise the cheap-ass indie games? Hell, isn't that the whole point of films and pictures anyway? You think a big film is made purely to convey a message? No. It's to make money. So that argument falls straight down.

I won't deny that the majority of games are made to appeal to the general audience through cheap gimmicks, but then, for every Call of Duty I'm sure there's a RocknRolla. Or a Monster Ark. So yeah, some games are art, and some films simply aren't.
Take BioShock...that story is better than half the films I've seen. And the lines were spectacular...especially the big ol' spoiler.

People can make a game on there PC. Doesnt make it art, it might be different but is still not art. Bioshock is still a game, they just have a better idea of the style and graphics they want to have. Games can have a great art style that is pleasing like Ico. Then i would agree. But the game itself isn't art.

But why isn't the game itself art? So what if a group of students get together, write and film an absolutely amazing, in-depth look at humanity...why do the film critics declare it a work of art, but if a game did the same thing, 'it's a game and therefore not art'?
What about great artists that sat alone in a basement painting their pictures. Why is that art, and a game not? You've yet to define what makes something art and what doesn't.

 

[Axolotl]

No games are not art, now shut up about it and focus all that energy your wasting on something that actually matters. Sure games can contain different forms of art in them but they themselves are no more art then the building that holds the art museum.

...Actually, ^this guy has a point.

Although it may be true the people in these threads will not listen to you regardless of how valid your arguement is.

But you haven't made an arguement. You've said games aren't art but you haven't backed it up in any way.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Well I'd say she thinks she's right because of her lack of experience with the medium. Just like you can dismiss any film or book if you've never watched or read one. If it really bothers find a few good episodes of Extra Credits here on the escapist and show her, theyre brillant and really know how to argue for games

They're also really time consuming and drag on and on and on and on...

 

[Tupolev]

Actually if you had been paying attention or could understand it I did make my arguement. Games are not art, games contain pieces of art but they themselves are not. An extremely common mistake people in this thread have been making is that because games contain art they think that that automatically makes the game itself art. They however are wrong, just because something has art in it doesnt mean its art. I also believe that creating a game is an artform, but again that does not further the cause of games are art which is another misconception people seem to have. You dont consider a musuem art so why should a game be. They both do the exact same thing, they house art but they themselves are most definatly not.

Actually, all you've argued is that the fact that something showcases art does not necessarily make it art in and of itself. Which does not prove that the showcase itself isn't art. I might point out that you're arguing with people who would argue that the arrangement and showcasing of many complex pieces can, in fact, be an artform in and of itself which produces showcases which are in and of themselves works of art.
In other words, you seem to have inadvertantly constructed a straw man.