What will make video games fine art?

[MoeMints]

I don't understand it so it sucks!

That funny enough goes to your own comment.

Never said that life sized giant boobed maid, a soup can, and splashes of paint sucked, just implied they can have INCREDIBLY polarizing and can be liked for what is considered faults otherwise or from a more critical position than your mindset already is.

In Brows Held High, he even explains his own experiences with the films very well.

 

[Requia]

I don't understand it so it sucks!

That funny enough goes to your own comment.

Never said that life sized giant boobed maid, a soup can, and splashes of paint sucked, just implied they can have INCREDIBLY polarizing and can be liked for what is considered faults otherwise or from a more critical position than your mindset already is.

In Brows Held High, he even explains his own experiences with the films very well.

Sorry, to much time hearing people on the other side of that polarization I guess.

 

[RiseUp]

Nothing will make video games into fine art as of this typing. In order for something to be a work of art, the artist must plant the idea that their work is art. In my opinion, video game developers and game journalists don't know anything about art. They're trying to plant the idea that video games are a work of art, but can't fully articulate a reason why video games are art. The best reason these people want video games to become art so badly is for the medium to be taken seriously, which is kind of a bad reason. Art is supposed to take people out of their comfort zone and expose them to new ideas. Art is also supposed to provoke a reaction out of the the viewer. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about art, I'm not referring to Jackson Pollock, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol;

I'm talking about Judy Chicago and the Dinner Table:
http://cdn.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/images/Dinner-Party_428-wide.jpg
Or Marcel Duchamp and the Fountain:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573
Or the Red Square:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/red_square18.html

That's what's considered art in the art world. Video games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls may look work of art, but sadly they're not considered fine art. Both games are more interactive movies than works of art.

Then let me ask you a question. Are movies fine art by your definition?

That's a pretty tough question for me to answer. I've been taught that art is very subjective and there's no right or wrong answers in art. What you think is art, and I think is art might be different. To answer your question: Movies are considered fine Arts, BUT it's not Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or The Godfather. An example of Movie as Fine Art to me would be stuff made by the Surrealist Movement in the 1920. They fit definition of art: Take people out of their comfort zone, and expose them to new ideas. It's really hard to tell what those are about since there's no plot or order to the films. I think in order for video games to be considered Fine Arts, it needs a Salvatore Dali, or Man Ray, not an Orson Welles.

So are you saying both film and games would gain greater artistic merit in your eyes from adopting the abstract rather than narrative? Frankly I disagree, your idea of "challenging perceptions" at least from what you've linked, seems to be works challenging what the definition of "art" is. Avant garde works, for lack of a better term. I personally think that's a really narrow definition, and it leaves out a lot of the broader artistic movements throughout human history, from the Renaissance to the proliferation of International Style architecture. It just seems restrictive, and sort of counter-intuitive, when you really think about what some of the works you mentioned meant in the first place to the people that created them.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The whole problem with this art debate is the definitions.

Google defines "Fine Art" as: creative art, esp. visual art, whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.

There are uncountable games that fit that definition. Most don't, but there's plenty that do.

After that, it all comes down to opinions. Does someone dislike the idea of games being art? Then they move the goalposts and redefine art so games can't have the title anymore. Games evolved and reached art status again? Time to pick up those goalposts.

The simple fact is this; Art is a virtually meaningless term. It's defined by the individual person, it's defined by cultural group-think, it's defined by the influential or "qualified". There are plenty of pieces in the Museum of Modern Art in New York that are garbage to anyone but the most pretentious of individuals. Now of course I instantly invite cries of "You don't get it!!!", but in most of the cases, I do. It's at the point where disliking a piece of "art" means you didn't understand it in the first place. It's nonsense and so is any attempt to define "art".

In fact, I would argue that by trying to define art as one thing, you miss the point of art entirely.

So to summarize this rambling, stop worrying about it.

Also what senordesol said.

This can be answered in just a few words. No major explanation necessary, but video games become fine art when they are unplayable.

 

[Fox12]

"Fine Art" is a difficult term to nail down. The Iliad and the Odyssey are often considered fine art because of the important historical and cultural value they held, so why isn't Lord of the Rings fine art? Greek mythology is just as fantastical as LoTR, and yet a statue to Zeus, Athena, or Poseidon is considered fine art, so why not Tolkien's master work? What about Star Wars? Watchmen? I also don't like the idea that fine art can't be entertaining or even silly. High art and pop culture aren't mutually exclusive. Just look at Shakespeare, half of his plays had fart jokes thrown in to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You see the problem with such a term? The difference to me is that high arts main objective isn't entertainment, its theme. That doesn't mean, however, that high art can't be entertaining to read/watch/play.

Ask yourself these question: is this work more about theme, or is it more about plot? If you would describe your story as an action adventure book about a hero who aims to stop a dark lord, then you are concentrating more on story. If you would describe it as a stark look at the effects of war on a civilian population, and the effects it has on the human mind, then you are focusing more on theme. Theme is generally more important in high art. The second factor is how well told is the story, and does it have cultural relevance? You may have lofty high minded themes in mind, but that doesn't matter if your writing is clumsy and heavy handed, and your characters are wangsty emo ass hats. Third, has the work lasted the test of time? Twilight has large cultural appeal, but it won't be around in 100 years. The Road may not have sold as well as Twilight, but it will be around much, much longer. That's because it has enduring themes that never become irrelevant, whereas Twilight doesn't. The themes of Shakespeare's plays are timeless, so we still read them.

There are some games that have incredible deep layers of thought and theme. Silent Hill 2 was brilliant, for instance, even if it hasn't breached the mainstream American mindset. In fact, the average game is currently far better written then the average TV show or film. I would argue games well on their way to fine art.

 

[cdemares]

This is easy, endorsement by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Done. Too late for that? Too bad.

There is no fine art. There's art history. The thing about art history is that it keeps going. Remember Vincent Van Gough?
If you ever feel bad about your favorite thing not being art, think about that guy. He died broke. Now he's called a master.
Videogames don't have it so bad.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think out perception of ART requires an ARTIST, and it's easier to tell an artist from a film rather than a game. I can probably think of at least a hundred directors with a distinct visual style, a certain understanding of life and a recurring vision throughout their work that defines them as artists. Most video game directors, I think, don't work from a vision of their own, they're just there to steer the boat and keep a schedule. I couldn't tell you if video games have a Marty Scorsese.

As someone who writes in his free time to create art and wishes to bring that type of experience in games, YET is too inexperienced to have A) Been in an actual AAA game studio and B) Go to College to partly find that out. Yeah, maybe I'm not the best source. BUT, I see video games as fine art. I just didn't know why. I think that definition is what will really put video games to the next level or at least understanding that.

I see all games as potentially artistic experiences. They comprehend just about every "fine art" in their making - there's a story, there's a soundtrack, there're aesthetic decisions and 3D sculpting and 2D drawing and lots of artistic decisions involved. But most of these just serve themselves (i.e. let's make everything as pretty and as realistic as possible) rather than a higher auteur-ish vision of the work.

 

[Caiphus]

When the average age on these forums becomes 67, and we then become the ones who decide what counts as "fine art", by virtue of our elderly, poorly functioning genitalia.

Because that's how it works.

 

[EyeReaper]

So, what exactly is the difference between Fine Arts and just normal Art then? Is it better looking visually? Carry a better message? Simply more pretentious? Or are we just talking the same old Games/Art debate? I'll just assume the latter, and expound my opinion on such.

Games can do, and have done, everything else all other forms of 'art.' I've played games that are stunningly beautiful, and games that carry deep emotional messages, political commentary, or the beauty of the human anatomy. The thing is, I don't think any entire medium can be considered art. Citizen Kane is considered Art, but that doesn't make every movie art, it just makes that movie specifically an artistic piece. Shadow of the Colossus, I would say, is a fantastic piece of art, but that doesn't make Call of Duty also artistic because they share mediums. That would be like saying a child's finger painting is just as artistic as the Mona Lisa.

 

[Malbourne]

I think anything created by a person is a reflection of humanity in some form or another. Art must be all of those reflections the observer happens to agree with. I don't know what fine art is, but it sounds boring. Entertainment isn't boring, and I like things that aren't boring. Hence, videogames are art, and fine art isn't. Q.E.D.

 

[Phuctifyno]

I'm not sure that there's a correct answer to that one, but for my two cents: the one thing that other mediums, those of "fine art", do well that video games have been severely lacking in is emulating reality. Many gamers are adults and claim that games can be made for "just adults", but most games (even those made for "just adults") still retain a huge array of fantasy bells and whistles aimed at kids. While most gamers don't mind because they're just used to it or might not even notice it, to the outside world, that's a big part of why it's still largely perceived as juvenile.

There are whole genres of painting, cinema, poetry, literature, etc. dedicated to just making something beautiful or interesting out of commonly occurring things from real life, and video games have not (with much success) found an engaging way to do this yet. Just about every video game I've ever played has had some kind of fantasy, sci-fi, horror or adventure element. There are some obvious exceptions, like sports games, historical RTS's, sims - but they don't put much focus on making the game's world reflect any real life experience (unless you're a pro-athlete, warlord, city planner or God).

Even the games that ostensibly take place in a more realistic world (think COD/MOH military shooters or Rockstar games) rely so heavily on film tropes that they really cannot be accepted as a reflection of the real world, just a reflection of a reflection. Even though much of cinema also indulges, there are many films and filmmakers who excel at making the world feel real and appeal to adults who aren't as interested in over-the-top. While there are many things that games can do just as well as (or even better than) cinema, this is not one of them.

For example, Hitman has a lot of excellent voyeuristic passages, and used to have a very subdued tone that made you feel like it could possibly be taking place in the same universe as a Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, or even a Coen Brothers film... but then there's all this retarded pseudo-sci-fi shit about him being a supersecret superhuman clone or whatever.... and those nuns...
Spider-Man 2 (I know, superhero, but still) was an awesome game that gave you free-roam exploration of Manhattan, but it didn't quite make me feel like I was breathing New York air the way Taxi Driver, Annie Hall, or even Ghostbusters did.

A game like Heavy Rain is kind of a step in the direction I'm talking about, but even still, it deals with especially dark subject matter that a normal person can't really relate to. Obviously, there has to be some kind of out-of-the-ordinary event that drives the plot, otherwise it would just be real life and that would be boring, but I don't think game developers and writers have really tested themselves enough to see how realistic they can go - or how interesting they can make real things. Maybe a game where you work in a hospital and have to deal with patients in a high-stress emergency environment (one that isn't a cartoon, thanks), or a straight-forward detective game (L.A. Noire was so close, but had that overtly cinematic vibe and really linear crime solving). Even committing crimes can be done more realistically - the new release of Thief comes to mind because you could set that game in the present day real world, or at the very least not make your protagonist look like a ridiculous ninja-pirate, and have it be just as engaging.

Bottom line is: there isn't any real tangible thing that separates "fine art" from any other art, it's just in how it's perceived (and by whom). I don't necessarily think that an art-form must comply with these standards to gain status as a "fine art", but it definitely helps people perceive it that way - particularly academia, who generally has more leverage to make those calls than critics or general audiences.


tl;dr - It's the stupid clothes your favorite game heroes wear.

 

[Ipsen]

I've been thinking a lot recently about what makes fine art and how we define it. I've also been thinking about what will make video games fine art and what will make us a more respectable medium.

Then I was watching the Nostalgia Critic when Doug dropped this info. What makes movies fine art? A movies purpose or what generally makes them fine art is when they can reflect something about humanity. It's what separates things like Lord of the Rings and Pacific Rim from being fine art and makes things like 12 Years a Slave and Dallas Buyer's Club fine art. To be fair, Lord of the Rings and Pacific Rim are still awesome. But they're entertainment, not fine art.

And that got me thinking about how video games can use this. I mean, they kinda already are as a lot of writers have also been realizing this. Here in 2013, we got a bunch of stuff that have been charted as changing points in video games, like The Last of Us and Bioshock: Infinite. Even terrible video games like Beyond: Two Souls are getting recognition because they all understand one thing. To reflect people, to show them and get to better understand them.

That's what separates fine art from entertainment. There's still great entertainment, Halo, Mario, and the wonderful Civilization. It's what makes Majora's Mask from Ocarina of Tine. What makes blockbuster films and true film art. I wanted to know what you think makes fine art, and what games do you consider fine art, if video games can be considered fine art at all? Whatever you think, I would love to hear it.

Time.

Or at least, time, given that the game industry continues to have growth and change.

I think we get hung up on the art labels because we want games to be taken seriously, but why through artistic merit? If (or rather when) game development proves immensely effective in, say education, no one would have a doubt that the game industry is to be 'respected'. Short story even shorter, there are other avenues for mainstream consciousness to consider games seriously.

Art remains held on high not just because of the feelings invoked, but because there's a respected history and it's a cornerstone of culture. Especially fine art, which for some reason, is held as the most high, and thus the most 'effective or evocative'. But someone had to write that history, and perhaps their culture is not relatable or comparable to your own.

I'm ending up just throwing darts at the wall, but all I ask is that you consider that there's a historical bias to art, and fine art especially. I wouldn't discount fine art; there are plenty of pieces that have moved me without even knowing much of the context behind them. However, I've always recognized a cultural disconnect, or at least I find more art of my current culture more effective.

I'm of the opinion that it's up to each generation to raise up and preserve what they find as fine art, if that's what you feel. It's at least slightly fallacious to do so for any other feeling. From there, the culture will take games seriously enough.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

Nothing will make video games into fine art as of this typing. In order for something to be a work of art, the artist must plant the idea that their work is art. In my opinion, video game developers and game journalists don't know anything about art. They're trying to plant the idea that video games are a work of art, but can't fully articulate a reason why video games are art. The best reason these people want video games to become art so badly is for the medium to be taken seriously, which is kind of a bad reason. Art is supposed to take people out of their comfort zone and expose them to new ideas. Art is also supposed to provoke a reaction out of the the viewer. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about art, I'm not referring to Jackson Pollock, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol;

I'm talking about Judy Chicago and the Dinner Table:
http://cdn.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/images/Dinner-Party_428-wide.jpg
Or Marcel Duchamp and the Fountain:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573
Or the Red Square:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/red_square18.html

That's what's considered art in the art world. Video games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls may look work of art, but sadly they're not considered fine art. Both games are more interactive movies than works of art.

Then let me ask you a question. Are movies fine art by your definition?

That's a pretty tough question for me to answer. I've been taught that art is very subjective and there's no right or wrong answers in art. What you think is art, and I think is art might be different. To answer your question: Movies are considered fine Arts, BUT it's not Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or The Godfather. An example of Movie as Fine Art to me would be stuff made by the Surrealist Movement in the 1920. They fit definition of art: Take people out of their comfort zone, and expose them to new ideas. It's really hard to tell what those are about since there's no plot or order to the films. I think in order for video games to be considered Fine Arts, it needs a Salvatore Dali, or Man Ray, not an Orson Welles.

So are you saying both film and games would gain greater artistic merit in your eyes from adopting the abstract rather than narrative? Frankly I disagree, your idea of "challenging perceptions" at least from what you've linked, seems to be works challenging what the definition of "art" is. Avant garde works, for lack of a better term. I personally think that's a really narrow definition, and it leaves out a lot of the broader artistic movements throughout human history, from the Renaissance to the proliferation of International Style architecture. It just seems restrictive, and sort of counter-intuitive, when you really think about what some of the works you mentioned meant in the first place to the people that created them.

Nothing will make video games into fine art as of this typing. In order for something to be a work of art, the artist must plant the idea that their work is art. In my opinion, video game developers and game journalists don't know anything about art. They're trying to plant the idea that video games are a work of art, but can't fully articulate a reason why video games are art. The best reason these people want video games to become art so badly is for the medium to be taken seriously, which is kind of a bad reason. Art is supposed to take people out of their comfort zone and expose them to new ideas. Art is also supposed to provoke a reaction out of the the viewer. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about art, I'm not referring to Jackson Pollock, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol;

I'm talking about Judy Chicago and the Dinner Table:
http://cdn.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/images/Dinner-Party_428-wide.jpg
Or Marcel Duchamp and the Fountain:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573
Or the Red Square:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/red_square18.html

That's what's considered art in the art world. Video games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls may look work of art, but sadly they're not considered fine art. Both games are more interactive movies than works of art.

Then let me ask you a question. Are movies fine art by your definition?

That's a pretty tough question for me to answer. I've been taught that art is very subjective and there's no right or wrong answers in art. What you think is art, and I think is art might be different. To answer your question: Movies are considered fine Arts, BUT it's not Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or The Godfather. An example of Movie as Fine Art to me would be stuff made by the Surrealist Movement in the 1920. They fit definition of art: Take people out of their comfort zone, and expose them to new ideas. It's really hard to tell what those are about since there's no plot or order to the films. I think in order for video games to be considered Fine Arts, it needs a Salvatore Dali, or Man Ray, not an Orson Welles.

So are you saying both film and games would gain greater artistic merit in your eyes from adopting the abstract rather than narrative? Frankly I disagree, your idea of "challenging perceptions" at least from what you've linked, seems to be works challenging what the definition of "art" is. Avant garde works, for lack of a better term. I personally think that's a really narrow definition, and it leaves out a lot of the broader artistic movements throughout human history, from the Renaissance to the proliferation of International Style architecture. It just seems restrictive, and sort of counter-intuitive, when you really think about what some of the works you mentioned meant in the first place to the people that created them.

Art doesn't have to be avant garde in order to challenge people's perceptions. There were plenty of art movements that challenged people's perception of art with Surrealism/Dada, to the Women's Art Movement, to Conceptual Art. The main reason why video games isn't considered a work of art is mostly because it's afraid of challenging people's perceptions. Even games like the Last of Us isn't a work of art. The Last of Us gives people what they want: A safe and healthy way escape. You play as Joel: An American man in his 50's who gets to kill people and zombies without feeling guilty about it. He's also a pretty cool dude who doesn't afraid of anything.

On the other hand, I might be wrong and video games will most likely be considered a work of art right after people accept graffiti as a form of art.

 

[DEAD34345]

"Fine Art" doesn't mean anything, it's just a term created by people to make themselves feel superior for appreciating whatever it is they've decided fits in that category. What will make games "Fine Art" is if they become outdated and unpopular, and a group of old people who remain fans of video-games start complaining that the NewPopularThing[sup]tm[/sup] is somehow inferior.

Personally, I hope it never happens.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Games can be considered fine art if they fall into one or both of the following categories.

1) The game carries a profound meaning. The "Message"
2) The game is profoundly made using the medium of video games in such a way that it can't be produced using any other medium. The "Delivery"

1 gets the medium the most respect, but 2 does the better job of establishing video games as a legitimate medium in its own right. As a result of the expectations towards 1, however, number 2 is woefully ignored, hence the prevalence of video games aping either books or, more recently, movies. Interaction is the name of the game, but using interaction as a way to tell a story is mostly uncharted territory.


Making art doesn't necessarily require the creator to be aware of what they're doing. It's more important that the person experiencing the work of art recognizes it as such. Often times, the things which are most striking are the things the artist wasn't even aware he made. After all, the art, being unknown to the artist, can't be filtered through the conscious mind for shame or modesty.

This. This so much.

If the interactivity is not used to deliver your message, then the game has art in it, but isn't inherently artistic. At least, that's how I view it.

And yeah, I agree that very few games actually do this well. I can think of a few - Shadow of the Colossus, Journey, Brothers:A tale of two sons, the final level in Halo:Reach, and a few more that I can't remember at this moment.

This is why I don't understand how a game like Bioshock Infinite gets so much praise. The gameplay doesn't tie in well with the story and just serves as a tedious, boring vehicle that carries you to the next story segment. By the end of it, I literally thought to myself - "why was this a game?"

 

[RiseUp]

Nothing will make video games into fine art as of this typing. In order for something to be a work of art, the artist must plant the idea that their work is art. In my opinion, video game developers and game journalists don't know anything about art. They're trying to plant the idea that video games are a work of art, but can't fully articulate a reason why video games are art. The best reason these people want video games to become art so badly is for the medium to be taken seriously, which is kind of a bad reason. Art is supposed to take people out of their comfort zone and expose them to new ideas. Art is also supposed to provoke a reaction out of the the viewer. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about art, I'm not referring to Jackson Pollock, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol;

I'm talking about Judy Chicago and the Dinner Table:
http://cdn.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/images/Dinner-Party_428-wide.jpg
Or Marcel Duchamp and the Fountain:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573
Or the Red Square:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/red_square18.html

That's what's considered art in the art world. Video games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls may look work of art, but sadly they're not considered fine art. Both games are more interactive movies than works of art.

Then let me ask you a question. Are movies fine art by your definition?

That's a pretty tough question for me to answer. I've been taught that art is very subjective and there's no right or wrong answers in art. What you think is art, and I think is art might be different. To answer your question: Movies are considered fine Arts, BUT it's not Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or The Godfather. An example of Movie as Fine Art to me would be stuff made by the Surrealist Movement in the 1920. They fit definition of art: Take people out of their comfort zone, and expose them to new ideas. It's really hard to tell what those are about since there's no plot or order to the films. I think in order for video games to be considered Fine Arts, it needs a Salvatore Dali, or Man Ray, not an Orson Welles.

So are you saying both film and games would gain greater artistic merit in your eyes from adopting the abstract rather than narrative? Frankly I disagree, your idea of "challenging perceptions" at least from what you've linked, seems to be works challenging what the definition of "art" is. Avant garde works, for lack of a better term. I personally think that's a really narrow definition, and it leaves out a lot of the broader artistic movements throughout human history, from the Renaissance to the proliferation of International Style architecture. It just seems restrictive, and sort of counter-intuitive, when you really think about what some of the works you mentioned meant in the first place to the people that created them.

Nothing will make video games into fine art as of this typing. In order for something to be a work of art, the artist must plant the idea that their work is art. In my opinion, video game developers and game journalists don't know anything about art. They're trying to plant the idea that video games are a work of art, but can't fully articulate a reason why video games are art. The best reason these people want video games to become art so badly is for the medium to be taken seriously, which is kind of a bad reason. Art is supposed to take people out of their comfort zone and expose them to new ideas. Art is also supposed to provoke a reaction out of the the viewer. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about art, I'm not referring to Jackson Pollock, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol;

I'm talking about Judy Chicago and the Dinner Table:
http://cdn.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/images/Dinner-Party_428-wide.jpg
Or Marcel Duchamp and the Fountain:
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573
Or the Red Square:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Drama/visualarts/avant-garde/red_square18.html

That's what's considered art in the art world. Video games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls may look work of art, but sadly they're not considered fine art. Both games are more interactive movies than works of art.

Then let me ask you a question. Are movies fine art by your definition?

That's a pretty tough question for me to answer. I've been taught that art is very subjective and there's no right or wrong answers in art. What you think is art, and I think is art might be different. To answer your question: Movies are considered fine Arts, BUT it's not Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or The Godfather. An example of Movie as Fine Art to me would be stuff made by the Surrealist Movement in the 1920. They fit definition of art: Take people out of their comfort zone, and expose them to new ideas. It's really hard to tell what those are about since there's no plot or order to the films. I think in order for video games to be considered Fine Arts, it needs a Salvatore Dali, or Man Ray, not an Orson Welles.

So are you saying both film and games would gain greater artistic merit in your eyes from adopting the abstract rather than narrative? Frankly I disagree, your idea of "challenging perceptions" at least from what you've linked, seems to be works challenging what the definition of "art" is. Avant garde works, for lack of a better term. I personally think that's a really narrow definition, and it leaves out a lot of the broader artistic movements throughout human history, from the Renaissance to the proliferation of International Style architecture. It just seems restrictive, and sort of counter-intuitive, when you really think about what some of the works you mentioned meant in the first place to the people that created them.

Art doesn't have to be avant garde in order to challenge people's perceptions. There were plenty of art movements that challenged people's perception of art with Surrealism/Dada, to the Women's Art Movement, to Conceptual Art. The main reason why video games isn't considered a work of art is mostly because it's afraid of challenging people's perceptions. Even games like the Last of Us isn't a work of art. The Last of Us gives people what they want: A safe and healthy way escape. You play as Joel: An American man in his 50's who gets to kill people and zombies without feeling guilty about it. He's also a pretty cool dude who doesn't afraid of anything.

On the other hand, I might be wrong and video games will most likely be considered a work of art right after people accept graffiti as a form of art.

What I'm saying doesn't strictly refer to avant garde, it's just that not all art has to be concerned with challenging the popular definition of what constitutes art. And I'd be the last person to defend The Last of Us. Don't get me wrong, it's still a fairly decent game, but it was predictably plotted, for the most part thematically vapid, and was (to be honest) a fairly generic story livened up slightly by interesting characters.

Anyway, back to the point, I don't think all art should be self-consciously concerned with its own role in shaping how people view art. Picasso helped pioneer cubism not primarily to challenge the perceptions of others, but because he became bored with painting traditionally and wanted to try something new. It wasn't about challenging an audience, it was about pursuing what he wanted.

On a less related note, I do see graffiti as art. Not tagging a building, but actually bothering to paint. It's a form of artistic expression in the same way that painting on canvas is, and even though the method is often a bit more crude, it achieves the same goals. See Banksy's work, for example.

 

[likalaruku]

I already consider video games to be a higher form of art than movies could ever hope to be.

 

[KOMega]

Who or what decides when something is art? I suppose anything popular enough with enough people saying it is art will be art.

So I think it's barrier to entry.

Such in the way that paintings, photographs, music, and film can be considered "art" because the majority of people sort of can tell just from looking (or hearing) exactly how it actually came together (i.e. you put paint on a piece of paper or you take your camera and point it at something.) and the only missing piece is how the "artist" figured to put that shade of blue next to that other shade of blue, the "creativity" essentially.

But how are games made?

Generally people don't know. It's made on a computer, probably. But the average person may know little about programming or in some cases how to even use a computer. They can't sit there and say "I could do this too, if I had that one creative idea that artist guy had."

Well, that's probably why "people" might not consider it art. But individually, you could probably sit someone down and get them to play something for a bit and they might consider it art.

 

[RiseUp]

I already consider video games to be a higher form of art than movies could ever hope to be.

I think video games have a lot of potential as an artistic medium, but I think they have a long way to go. Would you mind elaborating?