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.

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.

 

[JRCB]

You raise a good point. But then again, plenty of art can be dictated by the audience, depending how you interpret the art.

I agree on them being gateways to alternate realities, though. Most of the time, it's awesome, whether it's called art or not.

 

[Zarobitt]

My view on this is that games don't have to be art, but can be considered art. Also, in regular are the experience is not necessarily dictated by the artist, the great thing about art is that it is open to interpretation by anyone and everyone who views it. Having said that, I believe that in the same way games can be considered art, but are deeper in meaning than just a painting, a picture, a short story, or a novel. More like a combination of all of those along with the ability to choose the way that that experience is had.

 

[Baby Tea]

My view on this is that games don't have to be art, but can be considered art.

This is what I'm thinking.
Movies can be considered art, but that doesn't mean every movie is art.
Games can be considered art, but that doesn't mean every game is, or has to be art.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

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?

 

[TheComedown]

My view on this is that games don't have to be art, but can be considered art.

This is what I'm thinking.
Movies can be considered art, but that doesn't mean every movie is art.
Games can be considered art, but that doesn't mean every game is, or has to be art.

I agree 100% with this here

that games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist.

And disagree with this here.
Who says the artist has to direct everything that the audience sees/experiences? games do this anyway the push you along a path to see and experience different emotions along the way.

 

[cerebus23]

art invokes something for the viewer, makes then think and feel, there is static art, interactive art, plays and movies are considered art.

games have the ability when done well to draw a player in to even invoke emotion and thought, just try to play some bioware rpgs and see if you do not feel emotions for your characters and crew and some of the decisions you have to make that actually make you think about them. That is pretty much what art is supposed to do.

Now some would argue well the stories are thin the characters are stereotypes etc, well i would argue that much of modern art is utter crap also as well as movies and probably tons of plays if i ever bothered to go see plays. Just because we can nitpick the quality or lack thereof of paintings, sculpture, movies, games and etc. does that negate the whole of paintings, sculpture, movies and games as art?

i just seems eletist that mr ebert and others dismiss a medium that at its best can invoke every bit of feeling and emotion as a really good painting or sculpture just because they do not like it. thats like me dismissing every movie ever made as art based on ishtar or every pauly shore movie ever made.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

that games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist.

And disagree with this here.
Who says the artist has to direct everything that the audience sees/experiences? games do this anyway the push you along a path to see and experience different emotions along the way.

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

i just seems eletist that mr ebert and others dismiss a medium that at its best can invoke every bit of feeling and emotion as a really good painting or sculpture just because they do not like it

I see the whole "elitist" thing said quite a bit in regards to the "games are not art" viewpoint, and sadly it makes me feel a bit like the games are art thing is all part of the force of nature that is the Gamer Persecution Complex.

 

[Rylot]

The thing that bugged me the most about Ebert's statements is how dismissive it is. For someone to so out of hand disregard something with out even taking the time to understand it is insulting. He seemed to be saying "Have fun with your piddly little toys while I enjoy my high art" (said in a snobby British accent). "Look at the ancients with out idolatry, look at the Moderns with out contempt" Wish I could remember who said that, some French guy if I remember correctly.

 

[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.

 

[Dr.Sean]

Many games are a work of art, like Bioshock.

 

[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.

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.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Games cannot be art because the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist.

Happenings weren't art? There are plenty of things that aren't video games that are considered art that are pretty much created by the people viewing them. A concert, especially of a very passionate form of music, isn't the same as a CD of the same songs because the audience is creating the experience to a large degree. Is the concert less "art" than the CD? I should think not. What about flashmobs? Zombie walks? Silent Discos? Not art?

To me, art is about drawing emotions from the audience. Rarely is the emotion drawn the same for the same piece of art, even from the same person viewing it. How better to draw emotion from someone than to walk them through a narrative where they develop their own ties to characters?

In any case, no, video games don't have to be considered art. It's really only a word and a very ambiguous and clichéd word to boot. It has been repeated so many times by so many people describing so many things that it has ceased to have any real meaning. So why do people keep arguing over what is and is not art?

 

[Johnnyallstar]

It doesn't have to be an art, but when it is, it should be respected as such. Video games serve a function, and weren't developed as art, but can be very artistic. The problem is, they weren't originally devised as a purely artistic medium, and so far are having problems gaining value as an art when it is intended to be.

Similarly, cars were developed to serve a function, but many of them have a very artistic values. Not developed as art, but I can say that there are many cars that cannot be denied as it's own form of art. For example:

Go ahead and tell me this 1937 Cord 812 Supercharged isn't art. I dare you

The 1967 Camaro is a true piece of automotive artwork. Poetry in motion.

The same can be said about buildings, clothing, furniture, and so much more. Initially not designed as artistic, but used for artistic expression. It's just that video games are still considered "childish," and for some reason aren't worthy of being "art."

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

All games are art whether you like it or not-- beyond the obvious fact that they all require designers to contribute unique, creative content, each of these elements combines to deliver an experience to the player. That experience is what makes anything art-- the impression you receive after engaging the artists' medium is the basis of our understanding of art.

Contrary to what other people seem to be saying, all video games, movies, music etc. should be regarded as art. Individuals judge for themselves whether or not it is "good" art.

 

[Dango]

I don't think they should be considered art, they should be considered something more, much much more, besides, do we really want to have our precious games paired with this stuff anyway?

Art, no seriously, that's art.

 

[migo]

I don't see how you could argue games like Echochrome and Flower aren't art.

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

I don't think they should be considered art, they should be considered something more, much much more, besides, do we really want to have our precious games paired with this stuff anyway?

EXACTLY! Why is art the ultimate state of existence for a creative work? Why is everybody so obsessed with making the world say that it is?

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

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 don't necessarily agree with this, just because their is audience demand does not mean something cannot be art.

Didn't the Pope ask Leonardo Da Vinci to paint the Last Supper? That is art dictated by the audience, yet to this day it is considered art.

Also what about movies? A lot of movies are dictated by the audience while some are not.

So I believe that some games can be art and some are not art, just like any other form of entertainment.

 

[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.