Why do games have to be art?

Recommended Videos

coldshadow

New member
Mar 19, 2009
838
0
0
lets face it, due to haters there is a more likely chance that porn will be considerd art before video games.
 

Marble Dragon

New member
Mar 11, 2009
352
0
0
The response to Ebert's statement was absolutely ridiculous, I know. I agree. But I think I understand it somewhat.

Ebert is a film critic. He does not play video games - in fact, he refuses to play them. So, first of all, he really doesn't know a whole lot about the medium, besides the most basic of concepts. This annoyed a lot of people. "Who is he to say something about our favorite thing, when he doesn't know anything about it?" And, however his statement was made, gamers interpreted it as devaluing. Art, in our culture, is perceived as a good thing, something you want to have. Ever heard the expression "Work of art?" To hear, from a well-respected critic, that movies are art and games are not, well, that kind of stung.

As for why they have to be art? I don't know. Maybe it's because art is taken seriously. We respect paintings, plays, and literature, not only because they are good, but because they are art. They make us feel, and they show us something that maybe we hadn't seen before. Many gamers find that playing a good game influences them in the same way as watching a good play or reading a good book. I find gaming more like writing, for me, but maybe that's because of the strange side-plots I make up when I play games. (Example: "The liche king I summoned is displeased with me because we have been constant companions for so long, and he finds it very disrespectful that I am raiding these coffins for loot. My character and the liche king must reach an agreement on this, or he will stop working as efficiently in battle." True story, that.)

I believe that games are art, but I don't like to be included in these arguments. I'd like to know, though, what the OP thinks of this: Is a person who learns to play an instrument an artist, even if they don't write their own music? If someone learns to play the flute very well, and performs both solo and in orchestras, are they still an artist if they don't write their own music? Just curious.
 

Stoplesteimer

New member
Jun 4, 2009
175
0
0
Gamers want videogames to be art because that will bring respect or recognition that videogames are not just, well, games.
Basically we want to be validated in our choice to be gamers.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,154
0
0
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.
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.
 

Jorias

New member
Dec 10, 2008
223
0
0
Art as a noun is defined as a skill acquired by study, or observation (dev's do learn it somewhere). Also, a concious use of skill and imagination to create something (even a graphic art). I guess all those pixles on the screen that we see as images in games get their by accident.....

It's not that i really care about what taste someone has within art, but Roger Ebert is an ignorant gasbag that is obviously so stuck up and arrogant he forgot what shit smells like. The more important question is, why does a movie critic even give a shit about the inner workings of video games when i bet to wager he doesn't even enjoy them as gamners do.
 

RRilef

Dangerfield Newby
Jan 5, 2009
319
0
0
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.
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).

Personally I have the opinion that certain games can be considered art just like only certain movies, pictures, prose, and poetry can be considered art.

Take the generic emo-poem

It is dark, badly, and overly dramatically written, perhaps not even revised. It is an explosion of the mind onto paper, not art.

But then take something from Edgar Allen Poe

It inhabits the same type of poetry, but does something the former can not do. The Raven in particular tricks your mind into reading, faster and faster drilling in a sense of frantic desperation.

Take a movie like Avatar,

It told a convincing albeit slightly unoriginal story. However it explored ways of making film so in depth that many people have confused James Cameron's use of modern technology, as something completely new. Something to be considered art.

But then look at the (insert action summer blockbuster here)

Generally it is enjoyable and entertaining, but does nothing new, or even creative. It is entertainment, not art.

And for games, take something like Halo, or TF2

Both are enjoyable (depending on your perspective of course), and well made (whether you like it or not, this fact is more or less objective) games. But as for triggering emotion, they are not intended to do so, and are therefore entertainment but not art.

But then take something like Dragon Age

It creates characters that you can actually care about, and combines them with an intriguing story, and solid gameplay.


But arguing games can not be art because it is the audience that creates the experience is at least to me counterintuitive. Leaving things open ended, and open to interpretation is a favorite technique of many artists. I remember from English class many poets who refused to tell what they intended their poems to be about instead preferring others to interpret them on their own. Games just allow a greater degree of this freedom to interpret. Because of this, they are different from other forms of art, but still art.


Whew, and I intended that to only be a direct answer to your question, but instead you got my full opinion on the matter because im not deleting all that work, even if it is filled with grammatical mistakes created by a mind without enough sleep.
 

DeathWyrmNexus

New member
Jan 5, 2008
1,143
0
0
Ugh...


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.
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.

It can have horror, style, beauty, etc etc. Simply put, we insist on the classification because it fits as art. It is what it is and that is enough to make sure it is properly classified.

The plot for Fable 2 was rather meh but I found myself feeling emotions provoked by various areas of the landscape, especially behind Demon Doors. The design of the areas provoked an emotional connection no better or worse than the museums I toured in art school. There was skill and emotion put into a product which I then took in and had a response. In fallout 3, the first time you exit the Vault, I felt that momentary apprehension of looking upon everything I knew destroyed in effigy.

Can games be art? Yes. Can games or anything else for that matter be bad, tasteless, or otherwise uninspired? Also yes. Ebert seems to be belaboring under the assumption that art has to be to the standards of Sistine Chapel and has to have no interactivity.

So no, the simplest way for me respond to you is to ask, "If expression has no real rules and art is basically a form of expression then why can't games be art?"
 

gamer_parent

New member
Jul 7, 2010
611
0
0
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.
 

thefunk686

New member
Jul 28, 2009
17
0
0
As someone who is working their way into the industry (of game development) I think that the issue of games becoming a media that can be regarded as art is important because it allows for a distinction between the "games" that are merely an experience to enjoy and kill some time with, and the "artsy" games, which are much more of an experience, that sticks with you.

Do I think games being called art is truly important? Who cares? It's a label, and a vague one at that. Most gamers really just want to play good games. When I'm making them though, I take a certain amount of pride in my work, and to have someone call my craft inferior to another without any knowledge of it? That smacks of ignorance, and I hope that before anyone speaks out so negatively about games, they do a little research first.

A lot of the debate over this though, comes from a knee-jerk reaction of fans of gaming, leaping to defend their passion. Tell a car enthusiast that classic cars aren't art? Rage. An architect that his creations are merely living spaces? Rage.
 

|Ookami

New member
Jul 3, 2010
67
0
0
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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
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."

EDIT: Having had about 15 minutes to think on the topic (the post was rather hasty, I'll admit, as I had some things to go and take care of) I'd like to add some more of my reasoning on the topic of why it's important to me that the games that deserve it be recognised as art. Many people have addressed the "legitimacy" factor, which I believe is a part of it, there's also this: how "lasting" a game is. Games that are art last--games like Ocarina of Time and Shadow of the Colossus which people still think of as amazing and probably always will. Games which have not achieved the point at which they can be called art don't last nearly as well, I think. As an article I once read said, it's like early movies consisting only of things such as a man sneezing. Those don't last. People liked them because "Oh hey! It's a movie! That's so cool!" but that doesn't get you very far. We have to get past the novelty--stop thinking of each new game as something in which we must make an innovation in gameplay or graphics and begin to focus more on games with stories that speak to people on a deep level and stand the test of time. Art. The recognition of games as an art medium will help bring about the point where this is a reality in more games than just a select few, I think.

And why Shadow of the Colossus? Because it uses all of those excellently. The emotional experience is so strong for many people that, after beating the game, it's hard to fight the colossi again because you develop such an understanding of them and deep attachment to them. They are (spoiler alert) peaceful creatures which you have no choice but to kill for your own selfish purposes; as you play through the game, you begin to realise that most don't even try to attack you until you go up and stab them. You also develop an deep attachment to Wander and his situation, partly through the use of scenes in which you have control of the character, but the outcome is predetermined--a fascinating article on which can be found here [http://www.etc.cmu.edu/etcpress/content/shadow-colossus-nick-fortugno]. The musical experience in the game is also implemented exceptionally, coupling periods of lonely silence with beautiful compositions to add flavour to the world. (Video game music is an under-appreciated genre in itself, but that's for another discussion.)
 

philzibit

New member
May 25, 2009
470
0
0
There is no reason games should be considered art. It's not like if people except games as art will they become any better. Probably worse. Once games are considered an art, we will the same sort of tossers that muck up the movie and music worlds. Indie-Hipster fucks that will label this art but not that because "that" is successful. There will be games made with a plot that is deliberately retarded because "that's the point" and "well you just don't get it because your not an artist."
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
I'd say the reason we want some of our gaming entertainment to be recognised as art, is that if just one thing gets accepted, we can cling on to that as proof that gaming isn't just trashy, waste-of-time entertainment, and is as 'valid' as movies, music, books, etc.

Having read the guy above, what he says too :D

I'm all for meaningful artistic games, so long as they don't get in the way of the GAME. fortunately, so far, most games heralded as artistic genius are also held up as sterling examples of gaming, such as SotC, Braid, Ico, Okami, etc.
 

War Penguin

Serious Whimsy
Jun 13, 2009
5,717
0
0
Gamers want recognition for games. They don't want what they love to be stepped on or to be looked down upon. They want what they want to be legitimate. What can gain recognition for games? Being art.

I, for one, don't think games need to be art. Games will be recognized as legitimate sooner or later. It's becoming an increasingly popular medium.
 

Calhoun347

New member
Aug 25, 2009
198
0
0
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.
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.

Games don't have to be art, but games can be art. Of that I have no doubt. So far the closest I've gotten is the point-and-click adventure game I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. (Based on a novel). I'm not saying they are yet, but they certainly can be.

Honestly, It's not so much what Roger Ebert even said, rather than that he said it. Roger Ebert doesn't play games, therefore Roger Ebert can't comment on them with any credibility. It'd be like him writing a review of a movie he had yet to see. It's asinine.

Really though, it's a cycle that repeats, Video games are young as a media form. It's something movies and comics both went though. It's only a matter of time.
 

ReckzB

New member
May 28, 2010
197
0
0
I'm about to state something that somebody probably already has, so my thought's going to go and be dubbed totally unoriginal, but I care not, as I feel the need to add my opinion anyway; Roger Ebert is simply prejudiced to a relatively recent (by comparison) form of creative media, and, as he dislikes video-games, they are - to him - not an art form.

Of course, this is not the way I see it. I think that any expression of creativity - video-games included - is a work of art. However, this reminds me of something a friend said; there can be bad art. Well, he said it a bit more profanely, but I digress. That's not to say (all) video-games are bad art, by no means do I believe that, but any expression of creativity can end up being total and utter tripe, if not done right.

What really gets me about this though, is the fact that he practically dismisses an entire subculture, involving millions of people - and dollars, of course. That's just offensive, in my view, he posted an essay of an insult to the gaming culture and then coated in behind a thin veil of what he considers 'fact'.

Yes, I read the damn article...

'Art'? Art should be considered an opinion, rather than a definition.

P.S.: I can't take any artist who puts up blank canvasses as a piece in an art gallery seriously...
"And here we have 'Blank Canvas' by the 'Blank Canvas Canvassing Corporation of Canvasses'. Yeah, ignore that name on the tag there. He didn't do a damn thing. And moving right along we have the..." - yadda yadda yadda, you get the point. It's a good thing I don't work in an art gallery.
 

DeathWyrmNexus

New member
Jan 5, 2008
1,143
0
0
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.
That I can actually agree with. Glad he brought up the clarification by Ebert in the end.
 

_Cake_

New member
Apr 5, 2009
921
0
0
Cause everything wants to be art(music, writing, dancing, acting). Being a game or music or whatever is enough, it not a bad thing.
 

Helmutye

New member
Sep 5, 2009
161
0
0
I think this whole thing is just a big fuss over semantics. Who cares? It's like quibbling over whether a Bow and Arrow should be considered a Tool or a Weapon. It is what it is, and people will see it how they see it. You can see it as either, or both, as you choose and as best applies to the situation. Art is a vague enough term that I don't think you can draw hard and fast boundaries between 'Art' and 'Not Art.' Whether or not the majority of people would call them Art is irrelevant--plenty of people already take games seriously as a medium, and will discuss and analyze them just like they would with a movie or book. It's not like there's some panel that will convene and vote that games shall hence forth be considered art, and then all of a sudden everyone's views about them will change.

If there is some legal definition of Art that is required, then we can decide what is considered Art in a legal sense. But in a philosophical sense I feel like this is right up there with arguing over whether a particular garment is a suit coat or a sports jacket (and if you're going to point out the difference between the two, please be kind enough to also offer some kind of counter-point as well).

By the way, kudos to Nwabudike Morgan for picking that name and picture--I LOVE Alpha Centauri! For the record, I would consider that game Art!
 

Coratto

New member
Mar 26, 2010
36
0
0
Before video games it was animation. And animation is art much like it is theater with a computer puppet. Those that make the game put all they can into it. So animation was an art that took it to interactive, a way to change the art as you see fit but in the mind of the artist that designed it. They are art. Every single one of them for bad or worse, excellent or magnificent.

And just because I can't code I take that as an art form of itself. All the characters you see models without the clay. The animations? Puppets without the strings its art and I choose to forever see it that way.
 

oktalist

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,603
0
0
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?
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.

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'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.

Your assertion that games are better than art suggests that you have a low opinion of "art", whatever it is you mean by that word. I would very much like to know what has brought you to that opinion.

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?
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.

Of course 90% of all art is shit. This is because 90% of everything is shit. Even games.