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

Recommended Videos

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
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.

If you don't give a clear and stable definition to work from, this thread will soon be as meaningful as the "Does Robots have a Soul?" thread, where the OP did not clarify what a Soul was to begin with. Might aswell ask "What color is objectively the best color?"
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Realitycrash said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
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.

If you don't give a clear and stable definition to work from, this thread will soon be as meaningful as the "Does Robots have a Soul?" thread, where the OP did not clarify what a Soul was to begin with. Might aswell ask "What color is objectively the best color?"
You posted this before my edit, so I'm sending you the edit directly:

owyn_merrilin said:
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?
Edit: Wait a minute here, reading back over your earlier posts, you got what I was talking about after reading the OP. What, exactly, are we arguing about right now?
 

DanteVX

New member
Nov 23, 2010
22
0
0
I think games as art has taken of so much because its a defence. Games are constantly under attack by idiots like Fox 'News', and the only defence that holds any weight in a cultural and legal sense is artistic merit. If we are being pushed to claim that games have artistic merit just to allow them to continue being made, it would be difficult to say games have artistic merit and then say they aren't art.

To address whether they are, personally I believe that some games are artistic and that the way we engage with some games can be the same we interact with other art. I agree with the argument put forward by people like Kirkpatrick who use ideas by Adorno, Kant and Benjamin to try and understand whether games are art. Regardless, I would argue that games are moving towards being a place for aesthetic form, but this doesn't mean that all games have to work towards being 'artsy' games, games should always place a higher importance on gameplay.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
More Fun To Compute said:
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.
It's just it makes things easier to distinguish between. It just seems neater than saying a comic book of about this size. I understand what you mean, but you've gotta accept that the term graphic novel isn't just used by the people selling the book to make it seem more mature. Most people I know would use the term graphic novel to determine, as I said earlier, size.
 

SanguineSymphony

New member
Jan 25, 2011
177
0
0
IF you say that all games are art than so are all Music Pieces/Film/Literature etc. and vice versa

That would include

Pornography (all of it not just the classy stuff)
ICP
Erotic Lit
Everything.
 

Taunta

New member
Dec 17, 2010
484
0
0
I think this rant sums up my opinion on this topic quite nicely, and is definitely a good watch regardless.


TL;DR - I don't want all games to be art. I just want more games that explore the human condition, just as much as I don't want to lose games that are just mindless fun. I just don't understand the people that believe that games must be all X or all Y. It's that black/white thinking that gets people in trouble.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Taunta said:
I think this rant sums up my opinion on this topic quite nicely, and is definitely a good watch regardless.


TL;DR - I don't want all games to be art. I just want more games that explore the human condition, just as much as I don't want to lose games that are just mindless fun. I just don't understand the people that believe that games must be all X or all Y. It's that black/white thinking that gets people in trouble.
This guy fails on a couple of points. The first is that he starts contradicting himself around the two minute mark, and goes from "there's room for both" to "non-artistic games are juvenile, and we need more games that 'speak to the human condition.'" The second point is his comparison of games to movies and books, when they should be compared to sports and board games, at least the way the "games should be fun" crowd sees it. The more I think about the "games as art" idea, the more ridiculous it seems to me. Roger Ebert was right -- basketball players don't care that their game is not an art form, why do gamers? I'm not saying that it's impossible for games to do artistic things, just that it's the wrong medium for it 90% of the time.

[sub]Also, thread necro, man. This thing died out a month ago.[/sub]

Edit: I would be fine with the market having both artistic games and fun games, and it already does, as a matter of fact. The problem is that the vast majority of the "games as art" crowd pay lip service to that idea, and then do what the guy in the video did, disparaging fun games and showing that what they really want is for all games to be artistic. To use a movie analogy, sometimes you want Blade Runner, and sometimes you want Highlander. The existence of one doesn't destroy the other, but the "games as art" crowd ignores that 90% of the time, and spends the other 10% claiming that there's room for both before breaking down and making arguments for why there isn't.
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
This is kinda why I stopped watching Extra Credits (say what you want, but his videos on YouTube were far less pretentious). Not to mention I don't agree with the fact of using video games as an artistic medium. The way I've always seen it, a developer never made a game thinking "I want to express a certain vision with this game" (if anyone can provide proof otherwise, I will happily retract that statement).

As for the whole "this game isn't arty enough, it sucks", I have seen it much outside of Extra Credits, so I can't really say too much about that.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
OK, I'm just going to repeat the same thing I always say when this kind of thing comes up, then I'll leave.

Art is entirely subjective. It has never had, nor will it ever have, anything resembling a definition. Asking someone what they consider to be "art" is about as pointless as asking what their favorite color is. Therefore, the debate of whether or not games are art is pointless, because there IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER.

My work here is done.
 

Taunta

New member
Dec 17, 2010
484
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
[sub]Also, thread necro, man. This thing died out a month ago.[/sub]

Edit: I would be fine with the market having both artistic games and fun games, and it already does, as a matter of fact. The problem is that the vast majority of the "games as art" crowd pay lip service to that idea, and then do what the guy in the video did, disparaging fun games and showing that what they really want is for all games to be artistic. To use a movie analogy, sometimes you want Blade Runner, and sometimes you want Highlander. The existence of one doesn't destroy the other, but the "games as art" crowd ignores that 90% of the time, and spends the other 10% claiming that there's room for both before breaking down and making arguments for why there isn't.
Whoops, my bad, I didn't even look at the post date.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm all for fun games, and I'm all for serious games, but I just don't agree with anyone who says that games have to be all this or all that.

I do think the comparison between video games and a basketball game is a little unfair though. It all depends on what you, personally, define as "art". For myself, art in mediums like dance, film, etc are artistic because they try to convey the artist's emotions through your medium of choice. To me, basketball is less about trying to convey emotion through basketball than it is a healthy competition. Sure, there are some games that are like basketball, in that they're simply about who can get the most pies, but there are also other games that try to convey a message, an emotion, and/or a theme to its audience, just like there is "A Beautiful Mind", and there is "Rambo". Just like there are serious philosophical novels, and there are romance novels.
 

Taunta

New member
Dec 17, 2010
484
0
0
SageRuffin said:
This is kinda why I stopped watching Extra Credits (say what you want, but his videos on YouTube were far less pretentious). Not to mention I don't agree with the fact of using video games as an artistic medium. The way I've always seen it, a developer never made a game thinking "I want to express a certain vision with this game" (if anyone can provide proof otherwise, I will happily retract that statement).

As for the whole "this game isn't arty enough, it sucks", I have seen it much outside of Extra Credits, so I can't really say too much about that.
I think you need to watch Extra Credits a little bit more carefully. They've gotten a lot of flak for that, yeah, but they've said repeatedly that they don't want all games to be stuffy arthouse stuff, just the recognition that they can be.

I also think you're selling a lot of games short. There are several indie games like Braid who are praised for their thematic merit, but you don't even need indie games for that. There are plenty of themes exploring the human condition in AAA games, like Bioshock and God of War, for example, that sometimes get lost in the gameplay.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
This guy fails on a couple of points. The first is that he starts contradicting himself around the two minute mark, and goes from "there's room for both" to "non-artistic games are juvenile, and we need more games that 'speak to the human condition.'" The second point is his comparison of games to movies and books, when they should be compared to sports and board games, at least the way the "games should be fun" crowd sees it. The more I think about the "games as art" idea, the more ridiculous it seems to me. Roger Ebert was right -- basketball players don't care that their game is not an art form, why do gamers? I'm not saying that it's impossible for games to do artistic things, just that it's the wrong medium for it 90% of the time.

[sub]Also, thread necro, man. This thing died out a month ago.[/sub]

Edit: I would be fine with the market having both artistic games and fun games, and it already does, as a matter of fact. The problem is that the vast majority of the "games as art" crowd pay lip service to that idea, and then do what the guy in the video did, disparaging fun games and showing that what they really want is for all games to be artistic.To use a movie analogy, sometimes you want Blade Runner, and sometimes you want Highlander. The existence of one doesn't destroy the other, but the "games as art" crowd ignores that 90% of the time, and spends the other 10% claiming that there's room for both before breaking down and making arguments for why there isn't.
Wow, you're right. That was one of the most pretenious speeches I've ever wasted 8 minutes on.

I mean, he's right almost all the way through, but then he talks about Bioshock, and it all falls apart.

He says that the game is "primarily about killing people in inventive ways", and he's implying that this brings the game down. By doing that, he's also implying that the game would be improved without the mindless fun, despite it's artistic aspects already present. Thus, he's saying that mindless fun and actual depth can NOT coexist, which is odd, because he spends most the rest of the video saying they CAN. But if Bioshock is a better game with the mindless fun removed, isn't he basically saying that the games industry is better off with the mindless fun removed?


Then there's the end, where he says "If you don't agree with me, you hate games, and you're a coward." Fuck you, buddy. FUCK. YOU.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Taunta said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
[sub]Also, thread necro, man. This thing died out a month ago.[/sub]

Edit: I would be fine with the market having both artistic games and fun games, and it already does, as a matter of fact. The problem is that the vast majority of the "games as art" crowd pay lip service to that idea, and then do what the guy in the video did, disparaging fun games and showing that what they really want is for all games to be artistic. To use a movie analogy, sometimes you want Blade Runner, and sometimes you want Highlander. The existence of one doesn't destroy the other, but the "games as art" crowd ignores that 90% of the time, and spends the other 10% claiming that there's room for both before breaking down and making arguments for why there isn't.
Whoops, my bad, I didn't even look at the post date.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm all for fun games, and I'm all for serious games, but I just don't agree with anyone who says that games have to be all this or all that.

I do think the comparison between video games and a basketball game is a little unfair though. It all depends on what you, personally, define as "art". For myself, art in mediums like dance, film, etc are artistic because they try to convey the artist's emotions through your medium of choice. To me, basketball is less about trying to convey emotion through basketball than it is a healthy competition. Sure, there are some games that are like basketball, in that they're simply about who can get the most pies, but there are also other games that try to convey a message, an emotion, and/or a theme to its audience, just like there is "A Beautiful Mind", and there is "Rambo". Just like there are serious philosophical novels, and there are romance novels.
The point is, though, that what separates games from movies is the fact that they are, you know, games -- like basketball. It's not that they can't be used to convey a message, it's that doing it gets in the way of what makes games unique.

As for your second post below, it's you who needs to watch Extra Credits more closely. They pay lip service to the idea that there is room for both fun games and art games, but everything about their analysis says "games should be art, and games that don't attempt to be art are pushing the medium backwards." Their fans, if it's even possible, are even worse about it.
 

Taunta

New member
Dec 17, 2010
484
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Taunta said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
[sub]Also, thread necro, man. This thing died out a month ago.[/sub]

Edit: I would be fine with the market having both artistic games and fun games, and it already does, as a matter of fact. The problem is that the vast majority of the "games as art" crowd pay lip service to that idea, and then do what the guy in the video did, disparaging fun games and showing that what they really want is for all games to be artistic. To use a movie analogy, sometimes you want Blade Runner, and sometimes you want Highlander. The existence of one doesn't destroy the other, but the "games as art" crowd ignores that 90% of the time, and spends the other 10% claiming that there's room for both before breaking down and making arguments for why there isn't.
Whoops, my bad, I didn't even look at the post date.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm all for fun games, and I'm all for serious games, but I just don't agree with anyone who says that games have to be all this or all that.

I do think the comparison between video games and a basketball game is a little unfair though. It all depends on what you, personally, define as "art". For myself, art in mediums like dance, film, etc are artistic because they try to convey the artist's emotions through your medium of choice. To me, basketball is less about trying to convey emotion through basketball than it is a healthy competition. Sure, there are some games that are like basketball, in that they're simply about who can get the most pies, but there are also other games that try to convey a message, an emotion, and/or a theme to its audience, just like there is "A Beautiful Mind", and there is "Rambo". Just like there are serious philosophical novels, and there are romance novels.
The point is, though, that what separates games from movies is the fact that they are, you know, games -- like basketball. It's not that they can't be used to convey a message, it's that doing it gets in the way of what makes games unique.

As for your second post below, it's you who needs to watch Extra Credits more closely. They pay lip service to the idea that there is room for both fun games and art games, but everything about their analysis says "games should be art, and games that don't attempt to be art are pushing the medium backwards." Their fans, if it's even possible, are even worse about it.
Well then, if you are going to continue to believe that of the show, even though they have explicitly said otherwise, then I will agree to disagree.
 

Firetaffer

Senior Member
May 9, 2010
731
0
21
Since when was killing stuff 'mindless'?

Serious Sam, Painkiller and the like divulge in a wide range of tactics, and require certain weapons for different enemies. I might sound a bit too broad here but I would consider Mass Effect mindless (As an example, not to troll and/or make it sound bad) since all I focus on is shooting Dem Bad Guys. (eg)
 

Joshica Huracane

New member
Feb 21, 2011
159
0
0
I agree, that's a really annoying way to look at games. While I agree that games can be artistic and truly amazing, a game's first and foremost concern should be "I have to be fun". Because if a game isn't FUN, THEN it fails as a game. If it's also artistic, then its a bonus! And a very nice bonus at that. =D

Glad to see someone actually posting a thread about this silly behaviour.
 

SageRuffin

M-f-ing Jedi Master
Dec 19, 2009
2,005
0
0
Taunta said:
SageRuffin said:
This is kinda why I stopped watching Extra Credits (say what you want, but his videos on YouTube were far less pretentious). Not to mention I don't agree with the fact of using video games as an artistic medium. The way I've always seen it, a developer never made a game thinking "I want to express a certain vision with this game" (if anyone can provide proof otherwise, I will happily retract that statement).

As for the whole "this game isn't arty enough, it sucks", I have seen it much outside of Extra Credits, so I can't really say too much about that.
I think you need to watch Extra Credits a little bit more carefully. They've gotten a lot of flak for that, yeah, but they've said repeatedly that they don't want all games to be stuffy arthouse stuff, just the recognition that they can be.
Which I still disagree with, but I'm not gonna get on a soapbox since it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay past my bedtime as it is. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Taunta said:
I also think you're selling a lot of games short. There are several indie games like Braid who are praised for their thematic merit, but you don't even need indie games for that. There are plenty of themes exploring the human condition in AAA games, like Bioshock and God of War, for example, that sometimes get lost in the gameplay.
Do you mind elaborating on "thematic merit"? I'm pretty sure we're not on the same wavelength when it comes to that particular definition. If it pertains to graphics and the sort, then wouldn't it be kind of silly to say a game is "artistic" because it uses a certain art-style (because if so, I'm sure games like the Fable and Team Fortress series would get a lot more recognition), or because it "looks pretty"?

If you do indeed mean something else, then feel free to disregard the previous paragraph.
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
On the one hand, I agree with your overall message. On the other, I don't agree with a lot of the points you make.

A lot of the Serious Sam-, Duke Nukem-, and Doom-style games are pretty terrible when you strip away the nostalgia. Games really have come a long way.

Games certainly don't need story, but it really helps when a game has some element to drive the narrative forward, giving a sense of progression, intrigue, and progression. Story is just the easiest way to do that. In a lot of competitive multiplayer games, you don't need story because the competition drives the game, but that's a harder sell for 90's shooters where your only opponents are waves of a handful of different types of (badly) computer-controlled enemies.

I also don't really see how the fact that they're called "video games" has to mean anything. They don't have to be whatever the compositional meaning of their name is. This is especially obvious when you see how people (understandably) reject the idea of creating a new name for the medium - they largely recognise that one just isn't needed.

Finally, even if all games have to be art, not all art has to have a story. Plenty of games are already considered art, or at least close to it, without a story. In general, I think you're confusing the admittedly obnoxious "all games must be artistic to be good" noise with the more traditional "these games just aren't good" complaints. A lot of the 90's style shooters just aren't good games. Obviously people will disagree, but an awful lot of their appeal is pure nostalgia and they have a truly hard time comparing to a lot of better modern games. In light of that, going back to the genre just seems silly. I could easily understand trying to go back and reinvent the genre, bringing the things that were fun into the modern era, but just doing the same things as before is just repeating the same mistakes we've since learned to avoid.
 

Taunta

New member
Dec 17, 2010
484
0
0
SageRuffin said:
Do you mind elaborating on "thematic merit"? I'm pretty sure we're not on the same wavelength when it comes to that particular definition. If it pertains to graphics and the sort, then wouldn't it be kind of silly to say a game is "artistic" because it uses a certain art-style (because if so, I'm sure games like the Fable and Team Fortress series would get a lot more recognition), or because it "looks pretty"?

If you do indeed mean something else, then feel free to disregard the previous paragraph.
I actually wasn't referring to graphics at all, but if the art direction is unusual or well-thought-out, it can of course help to portray the themes in the work.

Thematic merit being the ability to explore certain ideas or messages and communicate them to the audience. For example, one of the themes of God of War being like a greek tragedy, and Kratos' hubris being his main downfall and arguably the biggest obstacle between him and his salvation. It also explores a theme of revenge, and how he is so devoted to his goal of revenge that he loses sight of everything else, in addition to what little part of him that made him human.

in which the main character is so hell-bent on murdering the man who raped his wife that he ends up killing his wife in his search for revenge, in addition to almost murdering his daughter.