When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"

Recommended Videos

Ghostkai

New member
Jun 14, 2008
1,170
0
0
I'll let our very own moviebob explain how I roughly feel about it:

http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

Watched it? Good.
Games are art, but MOST games, are bad art.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
AdumbroDeus said:
But what you don't understand is not every type of game requires a complex story and/or high levels of abstraction in order to have considerable artistic merit.
Umm, yes I do? At least, I think I do;

Does every game have to have some sort of "meaning" or "depth" to it? Of course not, and I am goddamn sick of it when people keep saying that other people are saying it!
Though reading into that, it doesn't come across that way.

My thinking right now is that video games, or the developers behind them, aren't quite skilled enough to make an "artsy" game into a "fun" game. Like, as of right now, the only games that people in general consider "artsy" are the ones with the complex stories and (somewhat) high levels of abstraction.

By all means, prove me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong on that sentiment. But right now, I think the industry is in a phase where "art" games and "fun" games are kept separate from each other.

Missle command is art, transmitting the hopelessness and horror of nuclear warfare through gameplay alone. Probably more effectively then any other game I've played.
It is, I'm sure. I've watched the Extra Credits episode as well, and I agree with their interpretation of the game. So long as you can prove it, with evidence in the example, like how it ends with "The End" rather than "Game Over", then you're not wrong.

Can Call of Duty be artistically effective? Modern Warfare, easy example. It's completely following with the genre and the genre themes of the game, yet "it" (and if you've played you know what "it" is, no spoilers here though) makes the game much more effective at showing the horror of war.
I assume you're talking about the first Modern Warfare, in which case I can understand what you're saying, and to a degree I agree with it. Call of Duty is an interesting example. Some say it's art just on the basis of "everything" being art one way or another. Then you got people saying it's just an action movie as a game.

To me, Call of Duty is more on the latter side. While I'm sure it has it's own themes and motifs and whatnot, I doubt that was the primary intent behind the piece. By all means, you could probably do a whole interpretive essay on Modern Warfare, or the franchise in general, and so long as you can prove what you're going for with evidence in the example, you wouldn't be wrong.

Attention to detail, reinforcing message through mechanics, and not being afraid to throw a curveball when it reinforces the game. That's what makes a good game in genre and makes it valuable as art.
Sure, and I'm not disputing that, and in fact I completely agree. Like I said in my original post, I was mostly going on ranty annoyance as I keep seeing one side of the "arty" debate going "Gosh, not every game has to be arty! They're called games for a reason!" and then seeing the other side go "Gosh, those Call of Dutys and Gears of War are ruining this industry with their push for graphics!"
 

jailbreaker

New member
Feb 21, 2011
13
0
0
Eico said:
I don't think emotion is key in art. If it was, the holocaust would be art for most.
Excellent point.

Perhaps a better definition is that it should be an intentful expression of emotion? Or an attempt to make another person feel an emotion?

Which actually would make many video games not art. On the other hand, some still would be. So the game part can be art, I say. Not always, though.
 

AdamRBi

New member
Feb 7, 2010
528
0
0
Story in a game is not the only prerequisite for an artful game. I still stand by the fact that all games art are, regardless, it's just a question of how good a work of art it is and how good it is to an individual. Some people might not enjoy, or may pretend not to enjoy, a game based on wether or not i has story or atmosphere just as they might not appreciate a painting based on the same merit.

If a game's trying to be too artful though, and in predictable and overused ways, it can get annoying. I'll agree to that.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
More Fun To Compute said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
More Fun To Compute said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
More Fun To Compute said:
Graphic novel is such a pseudy marketing term. If I learned that anyone involved in comic books that I like loved the term then I would lose respect for them. Don't feel the need to say any more.
I've always used the term "Graphic Novel" to differentiate based on size.
I think what you are talking about is just called the trade paperback.
Trade Paperback describes the binding, but Graphic Novel describes the format. When it first showed up in the 80's, the term Graphic Novel was intended to be a new, more mature name for comic books. As it stands now, it describes a comic book in trade paperback form, usually a self contained story composed of a certain run of comics, but also occasionally a Manga like serialized collection of a long running series, or something composed for the format, like Bone or Grease Monkey which I'm drawing a blank on examples of, because a quick wikipedia search shows me that the two series I thought had been exclusively published in the format both started out with a standard comic book run.
Trade paperback describes the binding which is what he was talking about. Other than that they are still comics really, unless someone really insists on having them called Graphic Novels for some reason.
No, I don't care about the binding, I've just always interpreted Graphic Novel as meaning larger.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
SL33TBL1ND said:
No, I don't care about the binding, I've just always interpreted Graphic Novel as meaning larger.
Well, when comic books get larger they definitely need new binding while a new name isn't really needed at all.
 

xdom125x

New member
Dec 14, 2010
671
0
0
Realitycrash said:
Who is claiming all games must be art?
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.
 

TilMorrow

Diabolical Party Member
Jul 7, 2010
3,246
0
0
I think it would be easier and probably better to say that games are an artform in the concept stage but can go in any direction when being developed. Also I don't think it ever changed from games can be art to all games must be art just some people think that way. Unless you mean all games must be of the same quality as art then I would have to agree, games which feel unfinished or are of a low quality are really annoying to play when you know more could have been done to it.
 

Bravo 21

New member
May 11, 2010
745
0
0
Im not sure when, but I think that I know why, because once you place games on the same level as art, then all games reach that level by default. Any painting is to a degree art. It might not be of great artistic significance, or even be any good at all, but it still consitutes art, because that is what paintings are. The same goes for movies, or books, they may not be any good, at all creative, or intelectual, but they are still considered art, if only in the most simple and base sense. Well, thats my ramble for the day.
 

Veldt Falsetto

New member
Dec 26, 2009
1,458
0
0
Well I personally think that if ALL movies are art as most would say, then ALL games are also art.

From my standpoint art has to have a meaning and can't be just meaningless.

From that view, a picture without any emotion put into it is not art, it is an image.

Britney Spears does not write her own music or lyrics and therefore can not be emotionally invested, therefore she is not an artist but merely a singer.

The Terminator is a giant meaningless cheese-fest filled with action and very little point, this is not art but it is film.

Marvel Vs Capcom is
FreelanceButler said:
It's about superheroes beating up other superheroes, with no reasoning behind it.
is that art? No, a game? Yes

How about Lady GaGa, well yes, she is a artist

Pulp Fiction? Why yes indeed that is art.

Surely not Final Fantasy? Yup, of course it is!

There are also things that are difficult to place such as Super Mario World, is that art? If you can put up an argument about how it is and it makes sense, then of course.

Art means different things to different people though, and that's why nothing and yet everything can be art. The ART of baking? The ART of making a car? Martial ARTs? Even the heART, yes to some people, even the human body is a work of art.

Also, just because I had to.

SammiYin said:
The primary focus for all games should be on the gameplay and enjoyment factor. If anybody is really desperate for it to be artistic then just impose that title on yourself. It's all art is anyway...
WONGA! or RHINO! or whatever it is your avatar is saying nowadays.
 

Segadroid

Apparently a Premium Member now
Mar 20, 2009
1,306
0
0
I simply see it as an excuse to give games another label.

"Games too violent according to you guys? Bam, now it's art."
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
xdom125x said:
Realitycrash said:
Who is claiming all games must be art?
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.
But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
 

Richard Hannay

New member
Nov 30, 2009
242
0
0
Realitycrash said:
xdom125x said:
Realitycrash said:
Who is claiming all games must be art?
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.
But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.

It's the same reason that we're all having this discussion over and over and over again. People see the word "art," apply their own definition, and gauge all other posted arguments in that light, in most cases without so much as considering that they might not actually be talking about the same thing.

EDIT: For the record, I really hate that for some reason I can't type em dashes or en dashes on this forum. I have to resort to that ugly two-dashes-in-a-row rubbish. It's like using a typewriter instead of a computer whenever I'm here.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
Richard Hannay said:
Realitycrash said:
xdom125x said:
Realitycrash said:
Who is claiming all games must be art?
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.
But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.

It's the same reason that we're all having this discussion over and over and over again. People see the word "art," apply their own definition, and gauge all other posted arguments in that light, in most cases without so much as considering that they might not actually be talking about the same thing.
Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
 

Richard Hannay

New member
Nov 30, 2009
242
0
0
Realitycrash said:
Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
No. That's not what I was getting at. I was just trying to point out exactly why threads of this sort may very well continue popping up and getting nowhere forever.

Step 1: Person who thinks of art as a measure of quality complains about perceived pretension of "games are art" notion.
Step 2: People with same definition of art agree.
Step 3: People with different definitions of art make various counterpoints. They are not read by most of the initial posters, who've already decided on their own definition of art anyway.
Step 4 (Optional): Definitions of art other than the OPs are labeled "pretentious."
Step 5: The fact that the definition of art is what causes the difference of opinion is hit upon, but fewer people than ever are actually still reading. Those who already labeled the discussion "pretentious" have already moved on.
Step 6: Thread dies.
Step 7: Return to Step 1.
 

zagadan7191

New member
Nov 22, 2009
31
0
0
If I may be so bold I think all games should be art. BUT a deep LotR style epic story is not inherently art either; a great game, with great gameplay and beautiful graphics (or artistic style) can be art, without the addition of a story; likewise I think a game that is maybe lacking somewhat graphically can still be called art due to a great story. Art is not interchangeable with story and it seems a bit of a reactionary thing to say...so there.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
Richard Hannay said:
Realitycrash said:
Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
No. That's not what I was getting at. I was just trying to point out exactly why threads of this sort may very well continue popping up and getting nowhere forever.

Step 1: Person who thinks of art as a measure of quality complains about perceived pretension of "games are art" notion.
Step 2: People with same definition of art agree.
Step 3: People with different definitions of art make various counterpoints. They are not read by most of the initial posters, who've already decided on their own definition of art anyway.
Step 4 (Optional): Definitions of art other than the OPs are labeled "pretentious."
Step 5: The fact that the definition of art is what causes the difference of opinion is hit upon, but fewer people than ever are actually still reading. Those who already labeled the discussion "pretentious" have already moved on.
Step 6: Thread dies.
Step 7: Return to Step 1.
Well, in all further posts of this kind, the OP might just aswell post "Art is in the eye of the beholder", and kill the whole post, OR he could be more specific and go for (what I THINK he wanted to go for) "Why must all games be forced to have a story, be special and creative, what's wrong with some mindless fun?"
Which was what I really replied to. "Who's saying they have to be creative and special?"

To be clear: Would be awesome if people would get their personal definitions in before posting.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Realitycrash said:
Richard Hannay said:
Realitycrash said:
xdom125x said:
Realitycrash said:
Who is claiming all games must be art?
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.
But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.

It's the same reason that we're all having this discussion over and over and over again. People see the word "art," apply their own definition, and gauge all other posted arguments in that light, in most cases without so much as considering that they might not actually be talking about the same thing.
Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
Would you feel better if I said "arty" instead of "art?" Also, I gave several definitions of art, they're scattered throughout the thread. My personal definition of art is that there are many definitions, and which ones are valid depends on the context; for example, under US obscenity law, something that is not "devoid of any artistic merit," as one of the prongs of the miller test states it has to be, is going to be a much easier bar to hit than the definitions that people throw around requiring emotional involvement. Excuse me for apparently not giving you enough context in the OP to get the definition in use; like I said, any definition of art is going to be context sensitive.

Edit: Also, ignore for a moment the fact that I didn't give my personal definition, and the fact that the generally held definition fits with what I was talking about. Art, like any other word is a word, and unless we're actively trying to redefine the meaning of a word, it's generally accepted to mean what it's generally accepted to mean. If I said "Dog" but meant "cat," I wouldn't really be able to have a discussion about either dogs or cats, would I?