Why do games have to be art?

[CarpathianMuffin]

This, like most things, is in the eye of the beholder. I think that games can be art, but I can see why people wouldn't think so.

 

[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.

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

No, my reasoning was because I think that art is a statement or creative expression made by the artist, and the experience is defined by the artist who produces the work. You can have a different reaction to the work or interpret it in different ways, but the thing the audience reacts to is the work presented by the artist. The work itself is set in stone, it is the thing the artist intended it to be and nothing else. The thing that keeps games from being art, in my opinion, is that no matter how much they do to try to control what the person playing the game is exposed to, the experience the player has is still ultimately one dictated by the player, not the creator. It's this lack of control over the work that I feel keeps games from being art.

 

[stygN]

If you mean art as in splendid graphics, then no.. I don't care about that at all.. It's all gameplay for me.

But.. On that note.. (or some other note, I don't play the piano) Can't one call it "The art of Gaming"?

Art is really only a symbol of accomplishment in a certain field of work. (As you may guess, I did not pull that one up from Websters)

Ask a free minded artist, in his/her eyes, practically everything is some for of art.

Is games an art? Yes sir, they are. Both making them and playing them, they're both art.

I really can't see how its not? If slabbing some paint on a window is art, then why not games?

But again, the graphics quality, couldn't care less!

 

[Dexiro]

I feel strongly that they are a form of art. They take skill and creativity so why shouldn't it be considered that way.

Like other people have said it just feels like some people aren't giving it the credit it deserves and are completely ignoring the creativity and skill that goes into making it.

 

[GundamSentinel]

To me, it's not that games have to be considered as a form of art (though in my experience it surely is a form of art). But Ebert says that games simply cannot be considered as art. That's more than a bit shortsighted. Art itself is quite vaguely defined and if you look it up in the dictionary games can most assuredly be grouped under the definition, but Ebert states (with no experience in gaming whatsoever, I might add) that no game in any form can be called artistic. That's just stupid. Each man should stick to his job, and Ebert's consists of movies, not games.

 

[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.

I agree with this.

Thank you.

Most everything can be viewed as art. Any expression of an idea or a feeling is art. To say outright that anything is "not art" immediately invalidates Ederts opinion. Thats what I think. Any one person who thinks they know enough about how so many other people digest media to just discount any one thing as not art does not hold any water with me.

 

[MrJohnson]

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.

Why do games have to be art? What is it about the idea of "art" that has so much value and, to some degree, power? Why can't we consider games to be what they are, something truly unique, an experience like nothing else, with an amazing, indescribable power.

If you ask me, games are better than art. They're gateways alternate realities, opportunities to live different lives. Isn't that better than art? I sure think it is.

Some of the best art in the world have made their stake on having the experience dictated by the audience. By creating some abstract notion, or idea, and illustrating it in a way that makes someone think and expand upon your idea, or come up with their own based on their observations of yours. Besides, art is so important because is symbolizes the human condition, it shows our evolution culturally and as a species in general.

And besides that, Ebert is a MOVIE person. How would he feel if someone went "Movie's aren't Art, they're all completely linear experiences with no variation and no room for audience interpretation and feelings!" Because saying Art is dictated by the creator, when Art in itself is an abstract concept and therefore unable to be dictated by any sort of norms, is just ignorant and stupid.

 

[fundayz]

I don't understand why this is even debated. Art by definition is a creative display of an artists ideas and/or emotion, a concept that is not undermined by interactivity in games or any other past or previous media.

So can games be art? The answer is a definitive yes, as an artist can express idea or emotions through them.

Is every game art? The answer is a definitive no, just as not all movies, books, and paitings can be considered art.

Bottomline: The interactive nature of videogames does not undermine its ability to be art.