lets face it, due to haters there is a more likely chance that porn will be considerd art before video games.
That's fine, but games can be both. They can be truly unique, and they can be gateways to alternate realities. That's amazing. But the ones that are art too are even better.Nwabudike Morgan said: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.
But you have to realize, to many people you are essentially asking why an elephant has to be an elephant. Games don't "have to be art," they are art (assuming you hold that opinion).Nwabudike Morgan said: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.
I find that video games can fit into 1, 7, and 12 without difficulty. Simply put, video games can express a variety of emotions and goals. Also, only idiots think art has specific rules and classifications. Being able to die in a game or having a score does not mean that the game can't express an idea or thought, espouse a virtue, or tell a story in a better manner than an illustration.Art ?noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,a.( used with a singular verb ) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b.( used with a plural verb ) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic . science, learning, or scholarship.
So do novels. Should writing also not be art? Personally, I think the fact that it lets you experience something like that is a part of what makes (certain) games art. Transcending one's own life is what art is all about, to me. Truly good paintings, books, movies, and plays can do just that--and so can games.Nwabudike Morgan said: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.
This sums it up pretty well. It's not as if every game made needs to be considered art, but there are games out there with truly breathtaking stories, music, etc that I think deserve to be appreciated as art, just as there are some very bad movies and books (see: Twilight) but also beautiful ones.Baby Tea said: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.
Well, as you can see here, the ideas on games and art differ from person to person. I'm not "fixated" on proving that they are, but there are games that I think certainly should be considered art, and--despite the circular reasoning--it's important to me that they're recognised as art because, to me, they simply are art. They are a medium which, when well-made, combines multiple art disciplines into a single artistic experience: movies, writing, and visuals, for example. They have the ability to create an environment which draws you in and allows you to connect emotionally with the characters and the world. There are games during which I've cried over the death of a character, become truly worried about the world as if it were real, begged characters to take a certain course of action as if my words could change their plans, and I think it takes a true work of art to draw that kind of emotion out of a person. I don't think it's right for something like that to be regarded as "just a game."Nwabudike Morgan said: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?
Why is the go-to game when arguing that games are art Shadow of the Colossus?
First of all, Novels can be art, but what I take away from reading a book and what you take away from reading a book are not necessarily going to be the same thing, no matter how close or far away they are from what the artist intended. The same can be said of any art form.Nwabudike Morgan said: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.
That I can actually agree with. Glad he brought up the clarification by Ebert in the end.gamer_parent said:actually, moviebob made a video blog [http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert] on this very subject on screwattack and I thought it was a good response.
They don't "have to be". They just are. There is nothing in this universe that can't be described as art, in my opinion. And that makes it pretty pointless to debate whether something is or isn't art. But to claim that something is not art is to devalue it, which is why I take exception when anyone makes such a claim.Nwabudike Morgan said: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?
That's just silly. We don't need a new category of super-art for things that are too awesome to just be called art. The category of art is good enough for even the most wicked awesome of things.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.
It's not the ultimate state, it's a baseline. I'm not obsessed with saying games are art. I'm obsessed with stopping people from saying that they're not - because it's an insult.Nwabudike Morgan said: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?