Why do games have to be art?

[The Geek Lord]

Here's the Ebert article that caused the internet to erupt, it does a better job of explaining the argument than I can.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Now, I don't really consider a single game in my collection to be art, as they don't inflict any sort of emotion in me, other than the occasional bit of "I am not doing this segment for the fifteenth time in a row" frustration. Now, I'm not even going to bother reading that article. Why? The title. The title pisses me off. It's like saying pieces of paper can't be art. It's like saying one is incapable of transforming something into art, even if they are one of the most brilliant artists to ever live. I really can't stand the word "never."

The first person to bring up "don't judge a book by it's cover, or an article by it's title," earn the pretentious prick of the early morning award.

 

[Knight Templar]

Now, I don't really consider a single game in my collection to be art, as they don't inflict any sort of emotion in me.

So since they make me feel something they are art? Also I thinks its interesting you used the word "inflict".

 

[Manji187]

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.

Interesting use of words . I'm getting the impression you already "know" the answer...but you want to read it coming from someone else.

If we for a minute just accept that the label "art" IS considered to be "the ultimate state of existence for a creative work" (without asking for the reason why...and whether this is a valid reason) and we accept that gaming is still fighting off social taboos...

then we can formulate a hypothesis:

Man, a social being, likes and seeks acceptance and approval...so he is inclined to present the things he likes as worthy of acceptance and approval.

Stated negatively, no one wants to connect their "essence" (Ego, individuality, personality...whatever you want to call it) to something that will decrease their relative value in the eyes of others. At least not in plain sight.

Why is this so? I don't really know...but I think it has something to do with our evolutionary fear of ostracism...which in ancient times pretty much equaled death.

Basically nobody wants to be an outcast, a pariah.

 

[The Geek Lord]

So since they make me feel something they are art? Also I thinks its interesting you used the word "inflict".

Not necessarily causing one to feel emotions makes something art, I suppose, but I don't have a very good definition of art, since I consider so few things art.

And about the word "inflict..."
? ( inflict something on) impose something unwelcome on
I typically switch between about three states:
-Humored, where I find something funny.
-Normal, for me, most of the day.
-Enraged, usually when playing a difficult game, or hearing some racist/sexist bullshit.

Now imagine suddenly crying over a fictional character from my perspective. Yeah. Inflict.

 

[veloper]

If it isn't shit and it isn't rediculously expensive, it isn't art.

Fun games are GOOD. Not art.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Games aren?t a free for all though, a lot of the experience is planned out. Sometimes people do things game developers don?t expect from the tools and choices they have given in the confined of the game, but for the most part it is a directed experience. The experience and perception of the game that comes from our end is obviously our own; whether we understand it, like it, or whether other experience or opinions negatively affect our perception of it this is true for everything. We can also do things outside of gaming to make general experience more pleasant or not as the case maybe.

Besides, other than gaming there have been more traditional art that has allowed interaction, and so put more control of the experience over to the viewer. Of course then we would have to get into the specific examples and decide whether to call that art to, but I?m not really up to it and it probably would need a thread of its own somewhere else.

Anyway, I don?t see why art need only be a more passive experience. Along with that you don?t necessarily need to consider the whole thing a piece of art, you can be more selective and just pick out the music and the styles that give the overall feel, these can only be experience more passively. I?m not sure I would consider game mechanics art, although they can affect the experience and are an important part of gaming.

 

[Knight Templar]

And about the word "inflict..."
? ( inflict something on) impose something unwelcome on
I typically switch between about three states:
-Humored, where I find something funny.
-Normal, for me, most of the day.
-Enraged, usually when playing a difficult game, or hearing some racist/sexist bullshit.

Now imagine suddenly crying over a fictional character from my perspective. Yeah. Inflict.

The emotion comes from within, so no matter how unwelcome it is, it isn't really inflicted. Unless you're just using that word for it's connotation, which I guess is fine.

 

[Nazulu]

Now personally I don't believe gaming is art. People seem to have missed the point, if you paint a field of corn then the painting is art, the field isn't. People don't understand the difference between 'art' and 'pretty', if you take a screenshot of SoTC and show it off then that screenshot is the art and the game is the subject.

It seems like your saying everyone's definitions of how gaming is art is by saying how pretty it is, generalising a bit? If so then you've ignored a shit load of good posts and hundreds of threads before this, so that obviously makes you pretty one-sided on this subject.

To me art isn't something pretty or detailed or well designed, to me it's a different perspective or a new and unique idea which gives something new to us all to experience, basically originality. There are many games that have changed the world and influenced countless amounts of people to improve on that idea.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Hi there. In my opinion, games are, or at least, can be, art. Of course, you seem to have a very, very strange definition of art - something entirely created and dictated by an artist. That confuses me slightly, but if I may share my definition of art - something meant to invoke thoughtful emotions or consideration of a serious issue. Notice the "Meant to," if something does this unintentionally that's not really art, it's just something that kindof happened.

So, in your opinion, also, an interactive medium, at all, can never be art? I would like to refer you to the games Sleep Is Death, Passage, and Today I Die. They're all free, except Sleep Is Death. If you don't want to download anything, look up Loved, Coma, or Every Day The Same Dream on Newgrounds.

EDIT: Oh, you can also express messages you couldn't through non-interactivity. A game, that would be really helpful if someone could give me the name of, I remember, you were trying to control this guy to an entrance but he would constantly struggle against you to get to the pills. It sounds stupid but it was effective. And you really couldn't get that from a movie, and such.

 

[Nazulu]

It seems like your saying everyone's definitions of how gaming is art is by saying how pretty it is, generalising a bit? If so then you've ignored a shit load of good posts and hundreds of threads before this, so that obviously makes you pretty one-sided on this subject.

Frankly there are a few good posts before this and a couple of good threads, most responses come back to 'Ebert is old, he's an elitist prick' which isn't helpful.

Well most people are one sided, that's why we have such impassioned debates. I'm not actually biased, for me the definition is semantic but I just get a bit fed up of qualifying my statements. Of course it's only my opinion, I'm not God so that's a given. Gaming to me isn't art so much as something resembling gardening,
it's an exercise in world building. I notice the way my opinion is one sided but "hur hur, Ebert is an old dinosaur and is wrong because he is, gaming is art 100%" is reasonable yes? I think that people as a group tend to miss a certain element of art in that art isn't just pretty things, art is calculated to give an emotional response. Basically art is a means for an artist to provoke a calculated emotional response and to express their emotions.

Alright, I know where your coming from so please give me a chance here.

First off, ignore the morons (trolls), you should know this, people being older doesn't make them stupid.

Second, I know it's your opinion like games are art is my opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? It's a belief from your personal experience that is neither wrong or right. The thing is though, the information you provide to back up your opinion can be based on facts.

Third, I'm open to anything and I hope you are too since I'm going to get slightly louder now. We both know art isn't something pretty (see Avatar) but what about something original or powerful like I said earlier, these 2 things can provoke an emotional response. What am I saying? They always do and I have played games that have done just that. All well designed games with a great atmosphere can make me glued to my surroundings and everything else, games like movies that can give you an amazing experience with even an insight to the artists mind that has influenced me to make games myself.

To me art isn't something pretty or detailed or well designed, to me it's a different perspective or a new and unique idea which gives something new to us all to experience, basically originality. There are many games that have changed the world and influenced countless amounts of people to improve on that idea.

See? This is the problem.

Me denying that games are art doesn't mean I think games are inherently worthless or lose anything by not being art. I have been gaming for 18 years or so now and I've always loved games, What does it matter if games are labelled as art? Does it make it more fun if they are? Do extra messages emerge? See I think gaming is a worthwhile endeavour without it being art, frankly it's a way of engaging in imaginative play in a compelling world, it allows me to create emotional situations and experience things I'd never feel otherwise. Children create deep worlds of conflict, friendship and adventure without any recourse to art, that sense of play is what gaming gives me.

Fuck it, yes! Gaming isn't art, gaming is experience!

There's no problem unless me seeing your point is the problem. I think I see your point but this doesn't change my opinion for the reasons up top and what I'm about to explain down below.

What does it matter to me if games are labeled as art? What does it matter to you if they are labeled as art? It's the same response for both of us, we disagree.

Most games I have played I just enjoyed and was great for passing the time but there have been few that have opened up a new world to me, like whatever art seems to have mean and done to you. And no, it wasn't from pictures in the game, or the music or the story, it's the collaboration of these things and other things that make one perfect medium. See what I'm saying? The pictures and music alone hardly means anything to me but altogether it creates something special. Games to me are completely different to movies, music and pictures, it's everything fused together and as long as all those things are good then the game is good, well games also need good gameplay too.

I hope this makes some sense to you, I tried my best.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

Thanks to everybody who answered my question instead of just telling me my opinion was wrong.

 

[Nazulu]

Have you read the original article and the Game Overthinker response? They sum up a lot of my feelings regarding gaming as art. Mr. Ebert doesn't feel that games are art because they are a team collaboration rather than produced by an 'artist' and don't represent an emotional statement by anyone. Moviebob believes that part of the objection is that we want to legitimise gaming and that we're well aware that gaming isn't as mature a medium as it should be by now. There's nothing to say gaming can't be an arti-no. No, that's not working for me...hmm...Oh I know, there's nothing saying that a piece of art couldn't be produced using gaming as a medium but at the moment I can't think of one game I was actually affected by.

I view gaming as a sandpit to play in and like digital paints. Are paints art? No. Can you make art with paint? Potentially yes.

I can be serious all I want, it's something I believe in you know so I can take things personally. And don't take me for a fool, I know what I'm talking about.

Also I don't like Ebert and his opinions don't register with anything but if you agree with them then whatever. Like the team collaboration thinga majig, you need someone to give a direction to what they're aiming for which is SOMETIMES the artist who is aiming for something big. And as for emotional statement, it doesn't seem you like you have played a game with one but there definitely are games with them. Like I've said twice already, I've experienced some things new and powerful and they have influenced me to take it further.

Legitimise gaming so it becomes a mature medium, it already is and has always been. What, you really think that no one has ever used games to express themselves or show other cultures? Oh it's serious, it's only ignorant parents that over-protect their children who say that games are for kids, just like cartoons but they started out for adults didn't they.

Also your right, there is nothing saying that games can't be art and unlike you I can think of quite a few games that have affected me in such away that they changed my life like I've said 5 times already. I want to be a game designer and story writer because of how it's affected me.

Agree to disagree

 

[Nazulu]

Thanks to everybody who answered my question instead of just telling me my opinion was wrong.

Your opinions can never be wrong but the reasoning behind can sure be, especially your first point, there is the experience for the artist in making that medium (whether it's games, movies, music, etc.) and the experience by the audience is in their personal interest with once again in every medium.

And in your second paragraph where you say games are "something truly unique, an experience like nothing else, with an amazing, indescribable power" just like I get from movies, music and even pictures.

Agree to disagree as always.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

Thanks to everybody who answered my question instead of just telling me my opinion was wrong.

Your opinions can never be wrong but the reasoning behind can sure be, especially your first point, there is the experience for the artist in making that medium (whether it's games, movies, music, etc.) and the experience by the audience is in their personal interest with once again in every medium.

And in your second paragraph where you say games are "something truly unique, an experience like nothing else, with an amazing, indescribable power" just like I get from movies, music and even pictures.

Agree to disagree as always.

My reasoning is my opinion, and as such can't be wrong. We're trying to define art here, which is something far more intellectual people than us have debated for centuries without agreeing on anything. Art is what the individual defines it as. My definition of art differs from yours, and neither of us are right or wrong. I respect the opinions of the people who think that games and art and understand why they would consider them to be so, I just disagree. Maybe someday a new game or argument will get me to change my position, and to be honest I'd love for it to happen, but for now I don't believe that games are art.

 

[Nazulu]

Thanks to everybody who answered my question instead of just telling me my opinion was wrong.

Your opinions can never be wrong but the reasoning behind can sure be, especially your first point, there is the experience for the artist in making that medium (whether it's games, movies, music, etc.) and the experience by the audience is in their personal interest with once again in every medium.

And in your second paragraph where you say games are "something truly unique, an experience like nothing else, with an amazing, indescribable power" just like I get from movies, music and even pictures.

Agree to disagree as always.

My reasoning is my opinion, and as such can't be wrong. We're trying to define art here, which is something far more intellectual people than us have debated for centuries without agreeing on anything. Art is what the individual defines it as. My definition of art differs from yours, and neither of us are right or wrong. I respect the opinions of the people who think that games and art and understand why they would consider them to be so, I just disagree. Maybe someday a new game or argument will get me to change my position, and to be honest I'd love for it to happen, but for now I don't believe that games are art.

No, your opinion is "games are not art", your reasoning was because you didn't experience it like books and movies or whatever.