Why do games have to be art?

[capper42]

To answer your question, gamers are so eager for games to be considered art in order for them to become a socially accepted media. If the general public perceives games as a valid medium of art, alongside film and painting, then most of the stereotypes regarding games and the people that play them will dissipate.

To put it even simpler, gamers want people to think games are art so they stop thinking of them as nerds, and see them as appreciating an artform.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I think the main reason so many gamers want games to be art is because of the respect associated with the term. That seems pretty obvious to me, actually.

I personally don't care what other people say about games. Some are philosophical masterpieces, some are just cheap, mindless fun, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[theamazingbean]

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.

If art to you isn't a gateway to an alternate reality, then you really aren't qualified to be talking about art, or games for that matter.

 

[Miumaru]

It IS art. From Gears of War, to Okami, to Dragon Age. Its GRAPHICS. Its as much art as any painting. However you control what the people in said panting do. Now whether the content is artistic is different, but it can be. To think games cant be art is just being a snobby douche who thinks that what "lesser people" like obviously has to lack any form of intelligence. Ebert is a Snob. Hell, that was his job.

 

[-Samurai-]

Why can't we consider games to be what they are, something truly unique, an experience like nothing else, with an amazing, indescribable power.

That's exactly what are is.

If you ask me, games are better than art. They're gateways alternate realities, opportunities to live different lives.

Once again, that's what art is.

Everything can be considered "art". There's always someone who will find the smallest thing artistic. Hell, I be there's someone out there that would look at the clutter on my desk and call it art. There was an article on here not long ago where a woman sold her used mattress as art, and people bought it! A used mattress!

Yet, something that can take years to create, with attention being payed to the smallest detail, is not art? It isn't just the games graphics. It's that, the storytelling, and the music. Next you'll be telling me that video game music cannot be considered music.

 

[Diligent]

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.

You nailed it 3 posts in!!!
My opinion is that while games are made up of artistic mediums (music, level design, texture design, story) it still (oddly enough) doesn't make the end product true art.
After all, when you look at "Hungry Hungry Hippos" somebody had to design the look of the board... does that make it a work of art?
And there are so many variables too, like the story and look of Bioshock, or Shadow of the Colossus, versus Smash Bros. or Contra.
Some games are trying to be pure unadulterated fun, and some games are trying to hit you with something deeper, just like movies.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

anybody else see this as a pointless thread?

Seriously, art is subjective and saying one medium of entertainment can never be art because you have a low opinion of it proves you are a narrow minded prick.

I don't care whether video games are considered as art by idiots who don't play them.

In my opinion Bioshock 1 was a good example of art but i don't feel like arguing over it.

 

[Wintermoot]

because we want games to be considerd something great

 

[migo]

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.

Since some games are art, it's important for the sake of truthfulness to consider them such.

 

[MoNKeyYy]

I think that some games are art and some are definately not. As an artist myself, I think that the intention behind art is encourage some kind of thought and emotion in the audience. Contrary to what has been said, the audience is actually very involved in the process of encouraging thought and prying emotion from a peice.

In theatre for example (my chosen medium) the job of the performers is to tell a story, and it's the audiences job to interpret that story as they see fit. A strong performance is one that evokes a powerful emotional reaction and makes the audience seriously consider the material. With games, the job of the audience is even more profound because the player is one driving the action, and more than ever is the audience free to react to the material in their own way. Besides, if the goal in art is to invite some powerful emotional response, then why are games that do just that not considered art?

Of course some games are most definately not art because the goal is solely to entertain and invites absolutely not emotion whatsoever. (Ex. MAG, Mario Kart, most Marios in general, Pokemon, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, and many, many others)

So overall, I don't think games NEED to be art per se, but some games with compelling stories and relatable characters most certainly are. Of course, anyone who insists that games HAVE to be artistic is just an ass, the number one goal of most games is primarily to entertain, and by most people's logic the measure of a good game is whether or not it's entertaining. Art and emotion and all that noise is just a bonus.

 

[Anah'ya]

So... the artists that work on games are not artists, because the final product is not art?

/confused

I never figured out why people actually discuss this. Common sense dictates that things that are created through creativity and then pushed to the public through whatever medium presents itself (paper, screen, rock wall, glass) are, at the end of the day, art. They will always at least try to evoke emotion or bring an enjoyable experience to the viewer/watcher/player/reader.

But just like with any other art out there, some folks might not consider it as such. There was a lovely picture of blank canvases that are considered "art" and I cannot stress enough how ridiculous some "art" projects really are. Though thats just personal taste, right? It doesn't change the fact that it is still art. For someone.

So, are video games art? Yes. They have to be if we're ever going to have them be taken more serious.

 

[Winfrid]

Because Art imitates life.... and isn't that what it's really all about?
Mmmmm, scintilating

 

[Nazulu]

Because some games are unique and unique is art. You really think Ebert's examples matter at all to me? Oh noez! You can win a game and get scored so a great new experience that no one has experienced before can't be art!?

If you ask me, Ebert's a moron that has something personal against games.

 

[Trigger Happy]

wow, I was just thinking this morning "who said what about games not being art?" lately I've been noticing so many things about "games are art!" and the like so I would first like to say, thank you for posting the link to the article.

part one

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?

I think this person said it best

EDIT: OT: games need to start being considered art if they are ever going to be taking seriously as a form of media.

I'd like to add that, I think having games stated as to "never be art" makes people feel insulted. As though they're looked down upon as someone with a mere childish pastime. I personally don't really care whether or not someone thinks it's art, I enjoy it and that's all that really matters to me

part two

Also why is the go-to game when arguing that games are art Shadow of the Colossus?

I honestly couldn't tell you, fantasy is not my cup of tea, or cup coffee, or can of soda, or container of beverage... *ahem*

part three

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.

yes

 

[Konaerix]

Acknowledging it as art would c

EDIT: OT: games need to start being considered art if they are ever going to be taking seriously as a form of media.

Look at this, everybody, an answer to the question!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy WE'RE ALL MATURE!1!!!!11!11!!!

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

For most people, the idea of games being considered art means that they have been taken seriously as a form of expression in which emotion can be conveyed. In other words, that means that we, as gamers, would also be taken seriously rather than the whiny bunch of nerdy teenagers with ADD they believe us to be. Why people were so upset over Ebert's declaration of gaming's segregation of the classification as art, despite it being "his opinion", is more or less due to the fact that he laid judgment and critique on a form of media that he is not familiar with and, therefore, has no authority on. This alone can still be argued as "his opinion", but the problem lies in the fact that he has an incredible amount of respect as a critic and the majority of people will undoubtedly accept his word as cold hard fact.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure about your own comment about how "the experience is dictated by the audience, not the artist". I thought the tried and true definition of art (if there even is one, but this is something almost everyone can agree on) is the intentional expression of emotion through a specific form of media. I have to think that I might be misinterpreting your argument. I mean, with that kind of narrow definition, then films are not art as well. Perhaps if you explained yourself a little more, I personally did not fully read the entire article that Ebert made.

 

[Nazulu]

EDIT: OT: games need to start being considered art if they are ever going to be taking seriously as a form of media.

I'd like to add that, I think having games stated as to "never be art" makes people feel insulted. As though they're looked down upon as someone with a mere childish pastime. I personally don't really care whether or not someone thinks it's art, I enjoy it and that's all that really matters to me.

Could be all of those things including it's just some persons (Ebert) opinion it can't be art and then makes a article to rub in gamers faces like it was proof, of course someone is going to rub back. Seriously, I saw this stupid article ages ago and it just keeps popping up like it's a great point.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Could be all of those things including it's just some persons (Ebert) opinion it can't be art and then makes a article to rub in gamers faces like it was proof, of course someone is going to rub back.

Pffft. Ebert couldn't even come up with a working definition of Art that excluded games but included all the forms of media he does consider art. That was the main reason he issued that back-handed retraction; he couldn't back up his own assertions.