Why do games have to be art?

[Nwabudike Morgan]

Let me get one thing out of the way first. I agree with Roger Ebert, that games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist. I fully expect to be crucified over this, but I felt it would be best if I was up front with it.

Fair enough, except A. Does the definition of art exclude audience manipulation? And B. Have you ever played Braid?

I pull up Braid because you cannot die, it's very linear, and has only one ending, much like a movie, which people seem to agree can be art.

And why? Because a lot of gamers are snotty twats who DEMAND that games be art. And really, why not? It helps give game design a purpose other than money grabbing.

It doesn't exclude audience manipulation. The artist is manipulating the audience, the audience isn't manipulating themselves.

I did play Braid, and found what everbody considered to be "art" just the game being obtuse.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let me get one thing out of the way first. I agree with Roger Ebert, that games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist. I fully expect to be crucified over this, but I felt it would be best if I was up front with it.

Fair enough, except A. Does the definition of art exclude audience manipulation? And B. Have you ever played Braid?

I pull up Braid because you cannot die, it's very linear, and has only one ending, much like a movie, which people seem to agree can be art.

And why? Because a lot of gamers are snotty twats who DEMAND that games be art. And really, why not? It helps give game design a purpose other than money grabbing.

It doesn't exclude audience manipulation. The artist is manipulating the audience, the audience isn't manipulating themselves.

I did play Braid, and found what everbody considered to be "art" just the game being obtuse.

That's not the part I was focusing on. It's impossible to go anywhere the dev didn't want you to in Braid (no death, linearity, one ending). That falls more squarely under "Art" then most games, as it's a little bit movie-like.

 

[Eldarion]

Let me get one thing out of the way first. I agree with Roger Ebert, that games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist.

All art is directed by the audience. They choose how they interpret it. I find your conclusion very narrow minded.

It's the interpretation of a statement made by an artist. In a game, the statement is being made by the audience.

Thats not true in all games. Heck, most games tell a liner story and if they don't the whole world and everything you can do is decided by the artists.

Anyway art is nothing more than the expression of an idea or a feeling, lots of games do both. To just blatantly disregard anything as "not art" is narrow minded and foolish.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I'm of the opinion that anything can be art, because art in itself is almost impossible to give one solid definition. What you might consider art, I may consider little more then junk, and vice-versa. The very definition of art is as open of a concept as art itself, it changes from person to person, and no two people may ever find the same definition. However...

the force of nature that is the Gamer Persecution Complex.

I really like this line. Gamers do seem to have a rather peculiar persecution complex (myself included at times).

 

[Chipperz]

WARNING - The following is my opinion, and works on the assumption that you consider Romeo and Juliet a work of art.

Shakespeare writes Romeo and Juliet, a play. It follows the tradgedy of forbidden love and is performed to a passive audience. It is considered art.
Shakespeare writes Romeo and Juliet, a novel. It follows the tradgedy of forbidden love and is read by a passive reader. It is considered art.
Shakespeare writes and directs Romeo and Juliet, a film. It follows the tradgedy of forbidden love and is watched by a passive audience. It is considered art
Shakespeare develops Romeo and Juliet, a game. Players follow Romeo over the course of his forbidden love with Juliet, culminating in a level where you have to race to her tomb, while knowing she isn't really dead, knowing that you can only advance the game's storyline with Romeo's grief-driven, futile, suicide. Mercurio is a broken as fuck boss fight and the whole thing is 'not as good as Twelfth Night'. It can, according to critics, NEVER be considered art, despite the fact that, in any other age, this would be a masterpiece.

This is where the contention comes in. You can believe games are "better than art" all you want, but it's the elevation to, or even just the acceptance that video games can be, art that will break the cycle of 'games make you violent', 'games are for nerds', 'gamers dont have friends' and, most damning of all, 'games are for children' that society has at the moment.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

I knew I wouldn't get the answer I was looking for and instead would just get people insisting that they are instead of explaining why it's so important that games be considered art.

Oh well.

 

[gamer_parent]

good job focusing on the question he was asking, guys.

You can disagree with him whether or not games can be art (I frankly disagree with him myself and believe games are by virtue of requiring creative input to exist, art), but the question he's asking is should games HAVE to be art. Besides, the whole argument about game = art is mostly a matter of semantics anyway.

OT: games don't HAVE to be art.

Look, if porn can get away with no being art and still be commercial viable, why shouldn't ANYTHING ELSE we consume?

The reason why is mostly because we associate something that is artistic with some kind quality that goes beyond simply being a consumable. A good book? art. A good movie? art. While we might not make it a necessary requirement to enjoy that thing, something that is artistic is often given intrinsic value and prestige over those things that aren't. It's the reason why some people will even go out of their way to make something that is artistic but thoroughly unenjoyable. (i.e. I once saw a student film that was supposedly very highly praised by it's artistic standard, but from my laymen standpoint is utterly boring and irritating to watch) Because art, regardless of whether or not it is actually useful or enjoyable, somehow brings value to itself by simply existing.

At least, that's how we as a society sees it.

The problem is when we really start to look at what it means for something to be "artistic". Does it mean it has to have some kind of meaning behind it? does it mean it has to be use a certain medium? or does it just mean it has to be "good"? (which then leads to the question "good in what sense?")

 

[theSovietConnection]

I knew I wouldn't get the answer I was looking for and instead would just get people insisting that they are instead of explaining why it's so important that games be considered art.

Oh well.

It's because it is a much loved hobby of ours, a passion. Be the art you find in games the grand decaying art-deco dystopia of Rapture or the escape from Nova Prospekt, we do find art in video games. The problem is this:

There is a growing tendency for people to forget that other's have differing opinions, and think that everyone must accept their opinion.

I think that is the best I can do to give you an answer you seek.

 

[Altorin]

Art is subjective. By its very nature. Your definition of art, and anyone elses definition of art are probably different. What constitutes an art is even more nebulous then what constitutes an RPG, and we as gamers know that that's a sticky subject. Just because you agree with someones view of art, doesn't mean that you're objectively "right", anymore then I'm objectively "wrong" for thinking that you are subjectively wrong. There's no right answer to the question of What is Art.

In my definition of Art, video games CAN be art, but don't HAVE to be art. But they HAVE to be ABLE to be art. Yes, a game is determined by the viewer, but so is a book. The argument is, if you just sit and let a game play itself, none of its artistic value will present itself, and that's true. But books are the same way. A book on the shelf isn't art. It has to be read and expressed and discussed to have any chance at being considered art. If you sit there and look at a book, that's not art (unless its some sort of ironic modern art piece). A movie on the shelf isn't art. You need to watch it to experience it.

That's pretty much my answer to your question. Just because you need to play a game to experience it doesn't mean it's not art. Only pictures have the benefit of being entirely passive art pieces. But then again, that's only my opinion. You may not make that distinction but that's how opinions work.

 

[Rylot]

I knew I wouldn't get the answer I was looking for and instead would just get people insisting that they are instead of explaining why it's so important that games be considered art.

Oh well.

Because we feel they should be considered art?

Edit: Legitimization and an end to the perceived slight against gamers that it's only for children etc. Nothing has to be labeled as art but when something is as has been mentioned previously it gives it more inherent value.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

I'm going to restate my question one last time before I give up on this thread. Why is it so important that games be considered art. What does labeling a game as art empower it with, exactly? What would games gain if people outside the gaming community started calling them art?

I'm not asking whether or not they are or can be, I'm asking why is a large part of the gaming community so passionate about getting the rest of the world to call games art?

I knew I wouldn't get the answer I was looking for and instead would just get people insisting that they are instead of explaining why it's so important that games be considered art.

Oh well.

Because we feel they should be considered art?

Just because you feel they should be art doesn't make saying that they are the answer to the question I asked.

 

[Mcupobob]

To me art is something that gives emotions and thought, paintings and sculpters don't do that for me(mabey its just how I view things or my though proccess) they look nice and I consider them decorations they don't give thought or emotion. literature, movies, t.v shows, and games all have this ablility not every one of them is going to be a artist statment some(or most) are just going to be entertainment. But alot aren't, thats just what my opinion is and thats what it think art is just a opinion. So yes games can and have been art, and in this modern world its important to start taking them into account. Robert Eurge is just a old froggy who is clinging to the days of old. I'm sure if you go back in time you'll find critics stating that movies could never be art.

EDIT: OT: games need to start being considered art if they are ever going to be taking seriously as a form of media.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

The question isn't whether or not they can be art, it's why a lot of the gaming community seem to be so fixated on proving that they are? Why is it so important to these gamers that games be considered art?

Also why is the go-to game when arguing that games are art Shadow of the Colossus?

For me, it's not exactly that we have to try to prove that they can be art, but the fact it's somewhat offensive that one would ignorantly stomp on such a possibility without a proper viewpoint. It's kinda like saying the video game demographic is too simple or uncultured to have their medium of entertainment be considered art. If he was a gamer, then I can say that he has his opinion and we'll go our ways. However, he is not and I sort of have a trigger against people who blindly accuse/insult/other-such-verbs about things they don't understand (my dad is the prime example and probably developed that trigger for me considering how often he pulls it). I believe it is unfair to us as gamers for a person who has never played them to write them off so easily.

 

[PhiMed]

Games can be art. Most games are not art, though. Roger Ebert's examples, which he believes make him sound so clever (Points? Scores? Really?), make him sound like a dinosaur.

Books, movies, and paintings can also be art, but the vast majority are not. We give dying mediums far too much creedence by acknowledging them so.

"Oh, that's nice. You made a painting. What a work of art! Here, I'll hang it up in my by-the-hour motel."

 

[Knight Templar]

Games art art. They may not always be art and its often bad art, but art all the same

Just because you feel they should be art doesn't make saying that they are the answer to the question I asked.

Why is it important for anything to be considered art? I belive Roger Ebert had to argue that movies were art at some point.
But to answer your question, it's part of this medium's growth. "It's just a game brah" is the reason so many video games have bad narratives. If it's considered to be art by the general population then better game are more likely to be made, but if this perception of "Its a game brah" or "Toys" stays then games will remain as they are and never improve. Granted the reaction of most people to Ebert's comments didn't help (MovieBob had a good explanation for that) but to simply let somebody who we all know lacks any knowledge on the subject pass judgement is not a thought that sits well.

Why do gun enthusiasts want the words "clip" and "magazine" to be used accurately? Because they care about it, and are tied of people who don't understand acting like they do (in this case its passing judgement but I think you get my point). Ebert is unable to define art in such a way as to exclude video games yet keep all that he knows is art. Interactivity? There goes some abstract and street art. Collaborative process? There goes movies, but in comes indi games.

Games can be art.
Most games are art.
Most games are bad art.
Games that are good art, are often overlooked.

 

[Nick Holmgren]

The question isn't whether or not they can be art, it's why a lot of the gaming community seem to be so fixated on proving that they are? Why is it so important to these gamers that games be considered art?

Also why is the go-to game when arguing that games are art Shadow of the Colossus?

Because we are rather sure it was crafted by a combination Orson Welles, Dante, Michelangelo, and every deity of all time.

More over it is a rather moving game if you let yourself get into it. The collusi are breath taking and sometimes beautiful and truly awe inspiring so to kill them is both a sadness and a joy. On one hand you are that much closer to saving your lover's life, on the other you killed a wonder of the world that had done nothing to you until you ran into its home at best.

Also it is something that would be nigh impossible in a movie or book as the feel of moving about the collusi is given such meaning by the control you have of it. You get to climb this
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/550/550778/wanda-and-colossus-20040924011146070_640w.jpg
and it looks so much better in motion.

 

[Judgement101]

So a movie with a $1 million budget that turns out to be crap is art but a game that costs $2 million and is enjoyed by many is not?

 

[Altorin]

To better answer your question maybe, is, It's not that labelling them as art empowers them, it's that being considered impossible of being art removes legitimacy. Gamers as a whole have never questioned that games are an artistic medium. Having someone stand up on a soapbox and say "THATS NOT ART!" removed legitimacy of the artform.